agent_content_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the diagnostic intent, but says nothing about what the tool inspects, whether it always returns a reason, or how failures/unavailability are surfaced — useful context, but thin beyond the annotations.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, and the operative concept (why content tools are unavailable) is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, which costs it the top score.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does not — an agent cannot tell whether it receives a cause, a status code, or a list of disabled tools. For a zero-parameter diagnostic this is a meaningful gap despite the simplicity.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is fully specified (empty object, 100% coverage), so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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 specific function — diagnosing why the site's content tools are unavailable — which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it leaves ambiguity about what is actually returned (a status object? a prose explanation? a cause list?) and whether unavailability is a precondition or merely the common case.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'call this when content tools appear to be unavailable', but the description never says so explicitly, nor states prerequisites or what conditions make it the right call. With no siblings there is no routing burden, so the implied context is minimally adequate.

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