source_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does imply a side-effect-free diagnostic ('Report', 'see what you're actually querying'), but never states read-only behavior, output shape, or latency/auth characteristics for a status check.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and finishing with the routing advice. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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?

For a parameterless meta tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it returns ('which job sources are live and why') and when to call it. Only the result structure is left implicit.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no argument syntax for the description to clarify or for the schema to document.

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?

Specific verb ('Report') plus resource ('job sources') with a stated scope: which sources are live and why. It is clearly a diagnostic/preflight tool, functionally distinct from search_jobs and score_opportunities, though those siblings are never named.

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?

'Call this first to see what you're actually querying before trusting the results' gives an explicit when-to-use and ordering relative to the search/scoring tools. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives, but the sequencing guidance is unusually clear.

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