get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what metrics are surfaced, which is useful, but it never explicitly states that the call is read-only, whether check_providers triggers live provider probing, whether there are side effects, or whether any auth or rate-limit considerations apply.

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 a single front-loaded, scannable sentence using a colon + listing structure. Every word contributes meaning and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema fields.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values do not need to be spelled out, and the description gives a coherent health-snapshot scope. However, the only parameter is unexplained, and the absence of any read-only or side-effect note leaves an agent uncertain about calling with check_providers enabled.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented check_providers parameter, but it does not. The phrase 'provider capabilities' is vaguely related, but an agent cannot tell whether setting the flag performs a live check, changes response behavior, or impacts latency.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a collector health/status report and enumerates the kinds of data included: DB counts by source/province, recent runs, HTTP metrics, and provider capabilities. It is easy to distinguish from the car-search and listing-analysis sibling tools, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'retrieves'.

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 health framing implies this is for operational/diagnostic status checks, and no sibling appears to provide the same function. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when the optional check_providers flag should be enabled.

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