get_api_status

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. It effectively communicates that the tool is free and non-destructive (implied by 'Get'), and it hints at a pre-call verification use case. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 front-loaded with key information in two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and resources, and the second provides usage guidelines and cost. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and cost, but could improve by mentioning response format or error cases. For a simple status-check tool, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by clarifying the tool's scope (e.g., 'service status, performance metrics') beyond what the empty schema indicates, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 states the specific action ('Get') and resources ('service status, performance metrics, trust score, and pricing'), distinguishing it from siblings focused on risk assessment, intelligence gathering, or monitoring. It explicitly identifies what information is retrieved, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to verify the service is up before making paid calls') and includes a cost consideration ('FREE — no payment required'), which helps differentiate it from potentially paid alternatives. This gives clear context for its application.

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