gazette_source_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing what the tool actually measures (reachability, cache age, scope count) and that it's a non-mutating status check. No contradictions with annotations.

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 includes a <use_case> tag, a German sentence, an English sentence, and an 'Args:'/'Returns:' block. While structured and informative, it is somewhat verbose with language mixing and could be more concise without losing clarity.

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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers all necessary information: what it checks, when to use it, and what it returns (reachability, latency, cache age, scope metrics). It is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite schema description coverage being 0% per metric, the description explicitly documents the single parameter (response_format) and its valid values ('markdown' or 'json') in the 'Args' section. This compensates well for the lack of schema-level descriptions, adding practical meaning for the agent.

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 checks reachability of amtsblattportal.ch, cache age, and released scope. The <use_case> tag explicitly distinguishes this status-check tool from the sibling search tools, making its purpose highly specific and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Call this when a search returns nothing and you need to distinguish an empty result from a source that could not be asked.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus the search siblings, which is textbook usage guidance.

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