rir_server_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false (safety profile), while the description adds valuable implementation context: it specifies the '/help' endpoint is queried, clarifies the operation is 'lightweight', and details the exact return format (Markdown table with specific columns: RIR name, region, status, conformance extensions).

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the opening defines the action, the second explains the technical mechanism (/help endpoint, lightweight nature), the third provides usage guidance, and the fourth documents return values. No redundancy with structured metadata.

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 health check tool, the description is complete. It covers the operational mechanism, usage context, failure scenarios (diagnosing RIR failures), and return value structure (Markdown table format), compensating for the lack of a formal output schema in the structured data.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4 per scoring rules. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'no IP/ASN needed', which explains why the schema is empty and distinguishes it from parameter-heavy siblings like rir_query_asn or rir_audit_org.

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 opens with a specific action ('Check') targeting a specific resource ('5 RIR RDAP servers') with clear scope ('real-time health', 'simultaneously'). It distinguishes from siblings like rir_query_ip or rir_query_asn by emphasizing it requires 'no IP/ASN needed' and queries '/help' endpoints rather than specific resources.

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: 'before bulk queries to verify connectivity' and 'to diagnose why a specific RIR's responses are failing.' This provides clear temporal guidance (pre-flight check) and diagnostic context that separates it from data-retrieval siblings in the rir_* namespace.

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