infrastructure_status

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds significant transparency: it explains the data structure, notes that vendorReputationScore and vendorPlacementRate are VENDOR-REPORTED approximations (not first-party), and clarifies that the control loop uses local signals only. This goes well beyond 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?

Three sentences with front-loaded key purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return structure, and usage alternative. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values with caveats about data sources. Also mentions sibling for account-wide rollups. No missing context for a zero-parameter read-only 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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter semantics because none exist, but it does describe the return structure, which indirectly helps.

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 that the tool returns warmup and provisioning progress per mailbox, using a specific verb 'Returns'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'account/metrics' for account-wide rollups, and the name 'infrastructure_status' aligns with the purpose.

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 tells when to use this tool (per-mailbox status) and when to use alternatives ('Use account/metrics for account-wide rollups'). No ambiguity about context.

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