Search agent reliability data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It describes the tool as returning real system measurements without side effects, and mentions 'No key needed' implying no authentication. However, it lacks details on rate limits, permissions, or whether it is idempotent, which would be expected for a read-only 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what data is returned, how it relates to siblings, and that no key is needed. However, it could briefly mention the expected output format or that it returns an array of objects, since no output schema exists.

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% for the single optional parameter 'agent_slug', so the schema already documents it well. The description does not add new meaning beyond stating 'No key needed' which is about the tool, not the parameter. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns 'Real, system-measured reliability per agent' with specific fields (success_rate, avg_latency_ms, sample_size). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'search_agents' by noting it exposes the same health data standalone for reliability-focused queries.

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 indicates when to use it ('reliability-focused queries') and references the sibling 'search_agents' as containing the same data. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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