Provider status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does: it discloses the data shape (operational or not, probe response time, last error, last-checked timestamp) and, importantly, that the view is probe-derived rather than authoritative. No rate limits or caching behavior is mentioned.

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 sentences, zero waste. The payload description is front-loaded, the provider list is relevant scope information, and the final sentence handles routing to the sibling tool.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates the fields an agent will receive and clarifies the data source. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter semantics, since there are none to describe, and instead spends its words on return content.

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+resource ('Current status of each LLM provider's API'), enumerates the covered providers, and names the perspective ('as AI Stupid Level's health probes see it'), which distinguishes it from get_incidents and get_drift_status without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the adjacent case away ('For past outages use get_incidents'), giving a clear when-to-use-this-vs-that signal. It stops short of stating any exclusions or prerequisites for this tool itself (e.g., that it is a live snapshot, not historical), so it is not a full 5.

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