avangenio_get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add extra context. It does that by revealing it reads from an external URL and returns both normalized and raw data. This adds non-obvious behavioral details beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe potential errors or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with a specific verb and resource, and no filler. Every sentence provides meaningful information about input, output, and data source.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it reads, from where, and what the return structure looks like. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it and understand 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 has zero parameters and the description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' which is consistent with the empty schema. Since there are no parameters to clarify, the baseline 4 applies.

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 'Gets the current status of Avangenio's services' and enumerates the specific service types (Internet, bandwidth, battery level, electrical service). It also names the data source URL. With no siblings, it fully disambiguates the tool's function.

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 retrieving service status but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, this is less critical, but the absence of explicit 'when-to-use' direction keeps it at a minimum viable level.

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