pizza_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered — though the description's 'Read-only, safe to call' largely restates it. It does add genuine context beyond annotations: it discloses that the call reaches out to the configured Domino's store (explaining the open-world behavior) and that it reports session-scoped order state. Missing are any error/timeout behavior when the store is unreachable, which matters for a network-touching check.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a tight enumeration of the specific checks, and a one-clause safety footer. Roughly 45 words with no repetition and no filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back — and it does so by enumerating the five facts returned (configured?, standing order, service method, store reachability, order already placed). Combined with annotation-covered safety, an agent has everything needed to call it and 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, so the baseline is 4. The description's references to 'the configured Domino's store' and 'default service method and payment' correctly signal that all configuration is implicit/implicitly resolved rather than passed in, which is useful reassurance that no arguments are needed.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Liveness + configuration check') and then enumerates exactly what is inspected: mcpie configuration, standing order, default service method/payment, store reachability, and whether an order was placed this session. This clearly separates it from pizza_order, pizza_dryrun, pizza_menu, pizza_specials, and pizza_find_store — an agent can identify it as the diagnostic tool without opening the 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?

'Read-only, safe to call' implies it can be invoked freely, and the 'was an order already placed this session?' item hints at a pre-order sanity check use case. However, it never explicitly says when to call it versus pizza_dryrun or pizza_find_store, nor does it state any exclusions or sequencing rules. Usage is inferable but not instructed.

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