energy_check_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by stating that two lightweight test requests are executed, which informs the agent about the tool's internal behavior beyond the basic safety annotations. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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, with only two short sentences and well-structured semantic tags. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by use case and important notes. Every sentence contributes, with no redundant content.

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, read-only, clear purpose), the description fully covers the human intent needed for an agent. The annotations and output schema handle safety and return structure, while the description adds use cases and implementation details, making it complete.

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, so there is no parameter structure to explain. The description adds clarity by stating what the tool checks and its overall behavior, which is appropriate for a no-parameter tool. A baseline of 4 applies here since there are no params.

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 with a specific verb ('Prüft die Verfügbarkeit') and resource ('GeoAdmin- und opendata.swiss-APIs'), making it obvious that this is a health/status check tool. It is distinctly different from the sibling tools, which all perform search/find operations.

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 explicit use_case tag ('Diagnose bei unerwartetem Verhalten, Monitoring') provides clear guidance on when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, which would warrant a 5.

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