status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the description only needs to add context — and it does, with 'Does not require any credentials', which is meaningful operational information not present in the annotations. It does not restate cost details for live checks (those live in the schema), so it is not fully rich, but it adds real value beyond structured data.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then the credential constraint, then the parameter trigger. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded. Minor deduction for the awkward line breaks and the unexplained 'Xearch' name.

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?

With only one optional parameter at full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, credentials, and the flag's use case, leaving only minor gaps such as whether live checks can fail/timeout or what the tool does not validate.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that live runs reachability checks and costs one search request. The description adds a decision-oriented trigger ('when debugging a failing tool call') that the schema does not provide, which is genuine value on top of the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reports configuration, caches, and optional endpoint checks. This is clearly a diagnostic tool, distinct in kind from the data-retrieval siblings (get_tweet, search_tweets, get_user), though the description never explicitly names them. The term 'Xearch' is slightly odd/unexplained but the resource being inspected is still clear.

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?

"Use live=true when debugging a failing tool call" gives a concrete decision trigger for the optional flag, which implies the tool's role as a first-line diagnostic. It lacks any explicit when-not/alternatives statement (e.g., 'use get_user instead to verify a user exists'), so it falls short of a 5.

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