search_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reports configuration details and performs a live ping search, which tells the agent that a live network operation is involved. It does not warn about possible latency or failure modes, but the behavior is adequately described for a diagnostic call.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence packs all relevant information with a colon-structured list. Every segment adds a specific piece of diagnostic info; there is no filler 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?

For a no-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the categories of information returned, and the diagnostic nature. The output schema can carry the detailed return structure, so nothing needed 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The empty schema makes parameter semantics a non-issue; the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 uses a specific category 'Health/diagnostics' and enumerates the exact information returned: DDGS version, backend/region/timeout/proxy, available backends per category, and live ping. This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling search tools, which perform searches rather than report system status.

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 'Health/diagnostics' prefix gives clear context for when to call this tool: checking configuration and connectivity, not performing a content search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent should not confuse it with the search siblings.

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