human_search_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly declares no network access (implying no side effects and safety to call), and enumerates the health states (ok / blocked / signing-in with reasons). It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether any state can change as a result of the call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leading with the verb and resource, followed by a dense but informative enumeration of returned state. Slightly list-heavy, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields (browser resolution, per-engine health with reasons, open sign-in windows, state root, config). This is nearly complete for a zero-param diagnostic tool, lacking only auth/permission prerequisites.

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 per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument status query and adds nothing misleading about inputs.

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 ('Report') and resource ('human-search server state'), and the enumeration of what is reported (browser found, per-engine health, sign-in windows, state root, config) pins the scope precisely. This clearly distinguishes it from the diagnostic-vs-action split with siblings human_search and human_search_sign_in.

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 phrase 'without touching the network' implies this is a cheap, safe diagnostic call, which helps an agent choose it, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus human_search or human_search_sign_in. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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