service_status

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it reads a public GET endpoint, requires no auth or allowance. No hidden side effects or permissions implied. This is sufficient for a simple read-only operation.

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: three short sentences totaling ~200 characters. Every sentence adds unique value: purpose, differentiation, and endpoint/auth details. No wasted 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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its scope, and how it differs from a sibling tool. It also specifies the underlying call, making it self-contained.

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, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool reports on the Run402 SERVICE (availability, capabilities, operator, deployment) and explicitly distinguishes from account status by referencing the sibling tool 'status'. Uses specific verb 'Reports on' and specifies the public endpoint.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative 'status' for account-related queries. Also notes that no authentication or allowance is required, setting clear expectations.

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