Argus

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm this explicitly, nor does it describe what constitutes 'health status' (availability, latency, rate limits, etc.), caching behavior, or whether the check is synchronous.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exactly six words with zero redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb and efficiently conveys the scope ('all search providers'). Every word earns its place for this simple utility endpoint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the existence of an output schema excuses the description from detailing return values, the description remains minimal. Given the presence of potentially overlapping sibling tools (particularly 'test_provider'), additional context distinguishing this bulk health check from individual provider testing would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, which per the evaluation rules establishes a baseline score of 4. With no parameters to document, there is no additional semantic guidance required beyond the implicit fact that this operation requires no inputs to retrieve health status for all providers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('health status of all search providers'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'test_provider', which may also relate to provider health/status checking, leaving ambiguity about which tool to use when.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'test_provider' or 'search_budgets'. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or explicit exclusions mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.