check_api_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'check' implying a read-only operation, but does not describe what the response contains, whether authentication is needed, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that checks API key status.

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 concise, front-loaded with the verb, and free of fluff. It is a single sentence that is appropriately sized for a simple status-check tool. However, it lacks structure (no sections) and could have used the space to add a bit more useful detail without becoming verbose.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the return value looks like or what 'configuration' refers to. It also fails to mention usage context or limitations. For a simple tool, it is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps about expected output and behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter (include_limits), so the schema already explains the parameter's meaning and default. The tool description adds no additional context, but since the schema carries the weight, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource ('API key status and configuration'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_network_status or get_account_balance. However, 'configuration' is somewhat vague and could be more explicit about what aspects of the API key are checked.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or explicitly exclude other tools. The context signals suggest a set of related tools, but no comparative usage information is given.

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