get_status

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

Discloses no arguments, no web requests, human-readable output with ok/warn/error status and fix hints. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden and does so well, though it could mention that the report is local and instantaneous.

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?

Two sentences, each dense with information. First sentence defines purpose and scope, second provides usage guidance and behavior. No redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully describes the return format and behavior. Covers all needed aspects for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool: what it checks, when to call, and what output to expect.

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?

No parameters in schema, so baseline is 4. Description confirms 'takes no arguments', adding no extra param info but consistent with schema.

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 it reports the health of the searchts install, specifying exact components (unlocker tiers, search providers, optional integrations). It distinguishes from sibling tools that fetch/grab/read URLs by being a diagnostic tool to use before relying on other capabilities or when they fail.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this first when another searchts tool fails or before relying on an optional capability.' Provides context for safer usage by noting no arguments and no web requests, guiding the agent to call it proactively.

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