Service status

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'No key' indicates no authentication needed, and the caveat 'This verdict is about the series exactly as submitted. The service never saw the data source, its costs, survivorship, or any lookahead in how the series was built' clarifies the service's limitations. It also mentions 'with quota constants' hinting at response contents. These disclosures go beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact, front-loading the core purpose in the first clause. It then provides the endpoint, usage guidance, and a critical caveat about scope. Every sentence earns its place, with no 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 status-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: when to call it, that it requires no key, and what the response indicates (service up + quota constants). The caveat about the service's limited view is essential for setting expectations. Nothing critical is missing.

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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (nothing to document). Per instructions, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist, which 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking whether the validation API is up, with the explicit endpoint 'GET /api/v1/validate/status'. It distinguishes itself from sibling validation tools by focusing on service availability rather than content validation. The phrase 'Whether the validation API is up' is a specific verb+resource statement.

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 an explicit usage trigger: 'check after a timeout before resubmitting.' This tells the agent when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the purpose is clear enough given the sibling list. The instruction 'No key' also indicates it requires no authentication, adding usage context.

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