pizza_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant. However, it adds valuable behavioral context: the tool checks if the configured Domino's store is reachable (implying external network calls) and whether an order was already placed this session (stateful). This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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?

One concise sentence front-loads the purpose ('Liveness + configuration check') and lists the specific checks compactly. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy beyond the minor repetition of 'read-only' which is acceptable.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and good annotations, the description fully covers the necessary context: what it checks, that it's safe, and that it provides session state. It is complete for a status-check tool.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter semantics, and the schema is empty, so there is no gap to fill.

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 tool is a 'Liveness + configuration check' and enumerates the exact checks (mcpie configured, standing order, store reachable, order placed). This specific verb+resource + scope distinguishes it from actionable siblings like pizza_order or pizza_find_store.

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 implies usage as a preflight or status check before actions like ordering, and explicitly mentions checking whether an order was already placed this session, giving context for when it would be used. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the read-only, configuration-focused nature is clear.

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