Provider status

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

Beyond the annotations, which already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and non-open-world behavior, the description adds that the tool is 'Free and local: makes no network calls' and that it 'Does not reveal API key values, not even partially.' Those are meaningful extra guarantees about cost, execution locality, and secret-handling that an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: the first lists the reported content, the second adds the free/local/no-network and secret-safety guarantees, and the third gives usage guidance and another security assurance. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important usage instruction is not buried.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does: it enumerates the categories of information returned (providers, mode, read-only state, data directory, capability resolution, credit estimate, limits) and explicitly states the one thing it will not return (API key values). For a diagnostic status tool this is complete enough to call correctly without further context.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4. Nothing in the description is missing on this dimension because there is nothing for the schema to document.

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 gives a specific verb (reports) and enumerates the exact resource surface: configured providers, mode, read-only state, data directory, per-capability resolution, credit estimate, and limits. It is unmistakably a diagnostic status tool and cannot be confused with the search, enrichment, or campaign siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage context with 'Use it first to see what OpenSDR can do and which env vars are missing,' which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or state when-not to use it, but for a status tool with no real alternative this is still strong guidance.

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