ddg_agent_status

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

No annotations provided; description implies a read operation returning a document, but doesn't confirm idempotency, safety, or side effects. Adequate for a simple parameterless tool.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no 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?

Given zero parameters and existence of output schema, description is mostly complete. Could mention return format (JSON) but not critical.

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 and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as description adds no parameter info.

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?

Clear verb 'Return' and specific resource 'DDG's machine-readable service/rail/MCP status document'. Distinct from sibling tools like ddg_checkout_conformance or ddg_mcp_security_profile.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward and siblings are clearly different, so implication is adequate.

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