api_status

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds that it 'always returns an evaluable status rather than an empty result'. This is important behavioral context not captured by annotations, helping the agent interpret results correctly.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a clarifying note about return behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 (no parameters), the presence of an output schema, and the annotations, the description fully covers the behavioral nuance that matters: the returned status is evaluable even when empty results occur. Nothing else is needed.

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 input schema is empty (100% schema description coverage). The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately adds no parameter details. It doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps because there are none.

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 function: 'Check whether the I14Y API is reachable and which endpoints respond.' This uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('I14Y API'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling data retrieval tools by focusing on API status rather than content.

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 explains when this tool is useful: to distinguish 'no data matched' from 'the source is down'. This implies using it when an empty result may indicate connectivity issues. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear for an agent choosing between this and data search tools.

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