status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool returns 'total live markets and number of sportsbooks', but does not mention cost, permissions, update frequency, or whether it is read-only. The description is minimal but adequate for such a simple, parameterless tool.

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 consists of two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Platform status') and then adds specifics. Every sentence contributes value.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is simple but adequate. However, it lacks details on data freshness (e.g., real-time vs. cached), which would be helpful for a health check tool. It is complete for a minimal tool but could be slightly improved.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which goes beyond the empty schema. It effectively communicates the tool's output without needing parameter details.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns 'total live markets and number of sportsbooks currently ingesting', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a platform-level health check rather than a data retrieval tool.

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 includes the phrase 'a cheap health/coverage check', implying it is lightweight and suitable for quick status verification. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context suggests it is a meta-tool, but guidance is implicit.

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