gazette_source_status

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context by specifying which sources are checked and what the output covers (reachability, latency, cache age). It does not mention error conditions or auth, but for a status tool these are less critical. 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?

The description is concise and well-structured with clear sections for status, arguments, and return value. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse quickly. It is not overly verbose.

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 tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the parameters, and the return value at a sufficient level. The output schema handles detailed return structure, so the description does not need to elaborate further.

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?

Schema description coverage is low (0%), so the description must compensate. It explicitly names the 'response_format' parameter and lists the allowed values ('markdown' or 'json'), adding clarity beyond the schema's enum. This makes the parameter semantics clear and usable.

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 purpose: checking the status (reachability, latency) and cache age for two specific data sources (Zefix and Amtsblattportal). It uses a specific verb ('Prüft') and resource, and it clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that search or retrieve company/publication data.

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 implies a clear use case: when you need to check upstream reachability or cache age. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context of the sibling tools makes this distinction obvious. A 4 is appropriate because the usage context is clear though not fully explicit.

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