asc_status

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it verifies credentials, reports server reachability, and includes rate-limit budget. These details clarify what the tool actually does during execution and what kind of information it surfaces.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the diagnostic use case follows in the second. Every word contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it reports (reachability, rate-limit budget), and when to invoke it. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 there is no parameter burden. With 100% schema description coverage (vacuously) and no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies. The description needs to add no parameter detail and appropriately focuses on behavior.

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 and resource: 'Verify credentials and report what this server can reach.' It clearly identifies a status/health-check operation distinct from sibling tools like asc_call, asc_write, or asc_pricing_get. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Run this first when anything fails — it distinguishes a bad key from a bad request.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and what diagnostic value it provides. It doesn't name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the conditional use case is strong and practical.

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