Read public Micro platform status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds meaningful context by stating no authentication is required and that delivery indicators are bounded to 30 days. There is 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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds authentication and data-window constraints in a natural order. Every phrase adds information; there is no filler.

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 read-only tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description covers purpose, global scope, authentication requirements, and data recency constraints. No critical detail needed to invoke it correctly 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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description; the schema has no properties and the 100% coverage baseline applies. The description's scope notes are sufficient in this context.

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 names a specific action ('Read'), a clear resource ('Micro-wide component state, published incidents, and bounded 30-day delivery indicators'), and an access scope ('without authentication or a linked project'). It is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly name sibling micro_status as an alternative, so it falls just short of full 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?

It states a clear context for use: this is for platform-wide status when no authentication or linked project is involved. It does not explicitly explain when to prefer a sibling such as micro_status, so there is no exclusion or alternative guidance.

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