service_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Reads public GET /status. No auth, no allowance required'—a clear, accurate disclosure of read-only, public, non-consuming behavior.

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 concise sentences. First sentence front-loads the tool's purpose; second provides contrast and context. No extraneous words.

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 params and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains scope (service vs org), accessibility (public, no auth), and resource impact (no allowance). Adequate for an agent to select and invoke.

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?

No parameters exist, schema coverage 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4. Description adds no param info, which is unnecessary; it does mention the HTTP endpoint, but that is not parameter 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 'Reports on the Run402 SERVICE (availability, capabilities, operator, deployment)', specifying both the verb 'reports' and the resource 'SERVICE'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'status' by noting it is not about the organization.

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?

Explicitly tells when not to use: 'For your organization status (allowance, tier, projects), use `status`.' Also notes 'No auth, no allowance required', guiding the agent on prerequisites.

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