get_data_source_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'status of each data source' without explaining what status means, whether it checks connectivity/latency/last update, or whether it is read-only or potentially slow. The description adds little beyond the tool name.

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 a single, short sentence that names the resource and lists the covered sources. There is no redundant wording or filler, and the core meaning appears immediately.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient: it tells the agent what entity is being reported on. However, it lacks any detail on the nature or format of the status values Mkay and does not clarify how this differs from similarly named sibling tools.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the output scope rather than parameters.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'get data source status' and enumerates the specific sources (TWSE, FinMind, FRED, etc.). It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like health_check or get_data_coverage.

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 implies the tool is used when you want to know the status of the listed data sources, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as health_check or get_data_coverage. No exclusions or conditions are stated.

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