get_network_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a failure handling guideline but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has latency, or returns historical vs real-time data. The failure instruction is a guideline, not a behavioral trait.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, the first clearly stating purpose and the second a critical guideline. No irrelevant information is included.

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 the complexity (simple tool with only two optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and a key usage warning. However, it does not explain return values or behavior when no filters are applied, which is a minor gap for completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions the optional date range filter, which aligns with the two parameters. However, it does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., date format, default behavior without filter).

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 gets network status with an optional filter by outage date range. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_network_element or list_internet_connections by focusing on network status rather than specific elements or connection lists.

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 clear guidance on when to use it (getting network status) and explicitly warns against fabricating data if the tool fails, which is a usage constraint. However, it does not differentiate when to use this vs alternatives like get_network_element or other network-related tools.

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