get_provider_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'Describe' clearly implies a read-only informational operation, which is helpful, but the description does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it describe the output structure or status value semantics.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then states the purpose, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand.

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 zero-parameter status tool, the description provides enough context to invoke it appropriately: it identifies the resource and the decision it supports. The main gap is the lack of explicit output format, but the tool's simplicity and lack of required inputs keep that gap minor.

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 properties and 100% schema description coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The phrase 'configured' adds a small amount of scope clarification by indicating the tool reports current configuration rather than arbitrary data.

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 and resource: 'Describe the configured place and route providers.' It also states a clear purpose ('so AI clients can distinguish demo estimates from live data') that makes the tool's role obvious and distinct from the sibling tools.

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 purpose clause gives a clear usage context: use this tool when AI clients need to know whether estimates are demo or live. It does not explicitly list exclusion cases or alternatives, but no sibling appears to provide the same status/configuration role, so the context is sufficient.

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