Server status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real semantic context beyond them: last_error is defined as 'the newest failure no later success has cleared', and the pushback pause and request budget are disclosed as observable state. It does not mention auth requirements or cost of the canary check, but 'cached' signals it is cheap.

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?

One dense but waste-free sentence that front-loads the most important item (sign-in state) and ends with the conditional parameter note. The awkward line break and lack of an opening verb slightly hurt scannability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, yet the description names the key ones and defines the ambiguous one. For a read-only, single-boolean-parameter status tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the canary behavior; the description restates it as 'check=true adds the cached canary' with no additional detail on what the canary measures or its failure modes. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool reports (sign-in state, request budget, pause after pushback, booking caps/spend, last_error, sign_in_links, canary), which makes its diagnostic purpose clear even though no verb is stated. It distinguishes itself from uber_connect by describing whether uber_connect can produce a sign-in link, but overlap with uber_account is never explicitly ruled out.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the pre-flight/diagnostic call before booking or when sign-in fails, but the description never says when to call it or when not to. The only explicit guidance is the conditional 'check=true adds the cached canary'.

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