opm_current_status

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the geographic scope (DC area), the types of events covered (weather closures, emergencies), and the return fields (title, summary, messages, posting date). This goes beyond the annotation without contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured: a purpose sentence, a return-fields sentence, a scope sentence, and an optional-usage sentence. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains what the tool does, return contents, coverage, and optional historical query. It lacks mention of the timezone default (handled in schema) and related tools, but overall it is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'date' and 'useutc' already described in the schema. The description repeats the date format and optional nature, but adds no new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get the current federal government operating status for the Washington, DC area.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and mentions return contents. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like opm_status_history or opm_status_types, despite the name implying 'current.'

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention related tools such as opm_status_history or opm_status_types, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is 'current status' or optional date query, but no comparison context.

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