get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns but does not mention whether an API key is required, potential rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. 'Get' implies non-destructive, but this is not explicit, and error/empty-response behavior is not covered.

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 and well-structured: one-line purpose, a short explanatory sentence, and clean Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and parameter, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description covers what it does, the parameter, and the return categories ('Service status, maintenance windows, incidents'). The output schema exists separately, so the description need not detail the return structure. There are no significant gaps for a status-check utility.

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 schema coverage is 0%, but the description lists valid region code values (ap, na, eu, kr, br, latam), adding essential semantic detail beyond the schema. It does not specify that 'region' has a default of 'na' or is optional, but the schema supplies that, and the description compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Get Valorant service status' and 'Checks for maintenance and incidents,' which is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools focused on player data (account, match history, MMR, leaderboard). It names the exact resource (Valorant service status) and the scope (maintenance and incidents).

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 implies the tool is for status checks but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or preference relative to sibling tools. The phrase 'Checks for maintenance and incidents' provides context but no direct guidance on when to invoke this tool.

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