provider_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Checks' implies a read-only operation and the listed outputs give some transparency, but it does not mention failure modes (e.g., what happens if no active provider exists), permissions, or any other behavioral edge cases.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes all key details without any redundancy or filler.

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 simple, parameterless status tool, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns: provider name, capabilities, and health status. However, it does not clarify what 'health status' entails or how it relates to the sibling provider_ping tool, leaving slight ambiguity.

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, so the baseline is 4 as per the rubric. No parameter descriptions are needed, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's output rather than 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Checks') and a clear resource ('active endurance provider'), and it enumerates the returned details (name, capabilities, health status). It is distinct enough from sibling tools like provider_ping, though it does not explicitly compare itself to them.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as provider_ping. The usage context is implied by the wording, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references.

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