check_api_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety, idempotency, and side effects. The description adds context about which specific APIs are checked (Azure, OCI, AWS), going beyond annotations without contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate for a simple health check tool. It specifies which APIs are checked, though it could optionally describe what 'accessible' means or the return format.

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, so schema description coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly does not add parameter info since none exist.

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 tool checks accessibility of real-time pricing APIs for Azure, OCI, and AWS. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('real-time pricing APIs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform cost calculations or comparisons.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it is implied it should be used to verify API health before running other pricing tools. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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