get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals what entities are covered (data sources, subscriptions, LLM providers) and implies a liveness check, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether the liveness probe triggers external network calls or quota usage, or how the status is obtained.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds specific coverage details. There is no redundancy or 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?

For a parameterless status tool, the scope is reasonably clear, but with no output schema the description does not explain what the returned status report contains or how an agent should interpret it. The lack of annotations also leaves side effects and read-only behavior unexplained.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and there is no parameter-level gap to compensate for.

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 reports data source configuration and health status, including Sci-Hub/institutional subscription enabled/disabled state and LLM provider liveness. This goes well beyond the tautological 'get status' and distinguishes it from siblings like get_settings or test_fulltext.

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 health/status diagnostic, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as get_settings or test_fulltext. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or decision criteria mentioned.

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