Engine Status

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral caveats: historical errors do not prove current failure, and disabled engines do not necessarily mean missing credentials. This helps an agent interpret results correctly.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by two high-value caveats that prevent misinterpretation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with no siblings in the same domain, the description fully covers what the tool accesses and how to interpret the data. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough behavioral context for correct use.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any conflicting or confusing parameter-related claims.

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 ('Read') and names the exact resources: engine configuration, authentication requirements, usage and quota sources. It also clearly distinguishes this from a health check, which sets it apart from any sibling that might be mistaken for it.

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 gives clear context about what the tool is for and explicitly warns that it is not a live health check. It does not name alternative tools, but the siblings are unrelated enough that the guidance is still useful and sufficient.

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