Check the I14Y API status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee beyond the annotations: it 'always returns an evaluable status rather than an empty result,' which shapes agent interpretation of results. No contradiction 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a key behavioral distinction that helps the agent reason about results. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter status tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It states what is checked, guarantees a non-empty evaluable result, and explains why that matters. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing missing. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed; the description appropriately says nothing about parameters.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Check whether the I14Y API is reachable and which endpoints respond.' This distinguishes it as a status/health tool from the data-retrieval siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or exclusion. It is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides clear use context: it is meant to check API reachability and to distinguish 'no data matched' from 'the source is down.' It implies when to use it (after empty results or when API health is in question), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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