source_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond annotations by clarifying that the tool reports reachability and latency, and by explaining the semantic importance of distinguishing source failures from empty results. This is useful behavioral context without contradicting any 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. It begins with an XML-like use_case tag conveying the scenario, then a direct statement of what the tool reports. Every sentence is meaningful, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple: it checks reachability and latency, with no parameters. The description explains both purpose and usage context, while annotations cover safety and idempotency. An output schema exists (not shown), so return-value details are not required in the description. The description is fully complete for this tool.

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 takes no arguments (StatusInput has no properties, and the optional 'args' defaults to null). With 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description does not repeat schema details, and no parameter explanations are needed since none exist.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Check whether simap.ch is reachable and how fast it is responding.' It specifies the resource (simap.ch read API) and the action (checking reachability and latency), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that search or retrieve procurement 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 provides a clear scenario for when to use the tool: 'Call this when a search returns nothing and you need to distinguish "no matching tenders" from "the source could not be asked".' This explains the context and decision point, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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