plasticity_reference_search_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds the useful boundary that the capability has no CAD, shell, local-file, or MCP access, which is real context. However, it slightly conflicts with the openWorldHint=false framing since it advertises a live web search capability, and it says nothing about what the report actually returns.

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?

Two short sentences; the purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence adds a distinct constraint rather than padding. Minimal waste, though 'isolated Codex' is unexplained internal vocabulary.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description should ideally indicate what the status report contains (e.g., boolean availability, reason/message when unavailable). It states what is being reported but not the shape or semantics of the answer, leaving a small but real gap for an agent that must interpret the result.

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 and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource (availability of live web search for product CAD/dimensional references), so the agent knows this is a status/capability-probe tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling status tools like plasticity_status or plasticity_capabilities, and 'isolated Codex live web search' is jargon that assumes internal context.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, but the description implies the tool is a precondition check for the reference-search path (plasticity_search_product_references / plasticity_analyze_design_reference). The second sentence gives a negative usage boundary, which is partial guidance rather than a routing rule.

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