get_api_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states a health endpoint check (which is a read operation) but does not detail what happens during failures, rate limits, or if the API is unreachable. The mention of 'Free' adds minor context but insufficient behavioral disclosure for an unannotated 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 extremely concise, containing only two essential pieces: the action ('Check the hosted...health endpoint') and an attribute ('Free'). Every word earns its place, and the main purpose is immediately clear.

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, no annotations), the description is largely sufficient. It explains what is checked and that it is free. A minor improvement could mention the expected response, but completeness is high for the context.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. Per the guidelines, '0 params = baseline 4'. The description does not add parameter details, but none are needed. It appropriately emphasizes simplicity.

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 verb 'Check' and the specific resource 'hosted Disruption Intelligence API health endpoint'. It succinctly explains the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_territory_disruption' or 'get_company_risk_summary' which serve different purposes.

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 usage for checking API health and mentions it is 'Free', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternative tools or conditions for non-use.

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