swiss_check_setup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the tool is a read-only configuration check that reveals operational status, which is reasonable behavioral disclosure. However, it doesn't describe the output format, whether it returns a list of configured vs. unconfigured keys, or any caveats about caching or freshness of the key status check.

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, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives imperative usage guidance. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter utility tool and fully front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema utility tool among many data tools, the description is complete: it defines the purpose and gives clear invocation context. It could mention what the output looks like (list of keys), but since there's no output schema and the agent needs to know what to expect, a minor gap exists. Still, it fully serves its purpose for a simple check tool.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description correctly communicates this is a no-input introspection call.

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 this tool checks which optional API keys are configured, with a specific verb+resource ('Check which optional API keys are configured'). It establishes itself as a setup/configuration introspection tool, distinct from the many data-returning sibling tools. The 'Call this first' framing gives it a clear, unique role among 30+ 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?

The description explicitly instructs when to call it: 'Call this first to know which Swiss API tools are fully operational and which need a free API key.' This gives explicit usage context and tells the agent to invoke it before other Swiss tools, which is clear action guidance. It differentiates operational vs. non-operational tools.

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