check_setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: settings are reported as present/absent and never their values (a privacy guarantee), and it discloses the output shape (sources, missing settings, tool mapping).

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scoped field list, and the entire definition is two sentences. The trailing clause 'to answer a question, call the tool for it' is a little garbled and slightly dampens the otherwise tight structure.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it says what is reported, that values are masked, and which tools each source serves. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter surface for the description to explain or compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb (report) and resource (data sources and configuration status), and enumerates what it reports on: price data, financials/SEC, inflation, news, plus the tool-to-source mapping. This diagnostic purpose is unmistakably distinct from every sibling, which are all analysis/query tools.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it when a tool says a source is not configured,' which is a clear when-to-use condition. It also implicitly steers away from using this to answer data questions ('to answer a question, call the tool for it'), though that phrasing is slightly ambiguous and no specific alternative tools are named.

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