Get CASDA archive status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds context that the tool reads VOSI availability from the public CASDA TAP service, going beyond what annotations provide. It also clarifies it is not local process liveness. This is valuable behavioral context.

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 at two sentences, with no unnecessary words. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second provides critical distinction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple status-check tool with no parameters and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains what it checks (archive availability), what it does not (local liveness), and suggests an alternative. With an output schema present, no further detail on return values is needed.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a tool with no parameters.

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 reads VOSI availability for the public CASDA TAP service, using specific verb 'read' and resource 'archive status'. It distinguishes from local process liveness by explicitly noting it is archive availability, not local. This clarity helps an agent understand the tool's exact purpose.

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 provides clear guidance: it is for archive availability, not local liveness, and advises using /healthz for the MCP server itself. This helps an agent decide when to use this tool vs. the health endpoint. However, it does not contrast with similar status tools like casda_get_staging_status or casda_get_auth_status, which slightly limits completeness.

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