search_index_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool returns (status information and metadata in a dictionary format) and lists specific data points included. It doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, or authentication requirements, but provides substantial behavioral context for a read-only status tool.

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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of returned information and a summary of the return format. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The bulleted list makes the information easily scannable.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only status check), the presence of an output schema, and the detailed description of what information is returned, the description is complete. It provides all necessary context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively without being overly verbose.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the return value semantics.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current status of the search index'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_rebuild_progress' (which tracks progress) and 'rebuild_search_index' (which performs an action). The description explicitly identifies what information is returned about the search index.

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 by listing the specific status information returned, suggesting it's for monitoring the search index. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_rebuild_progress' (for rebuild status) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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