trendzeist_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the call performs no network requests, and it specifies the exact behavioral states reported (live / error / idle with last error, cache usage, archive rows/dates/last_error). It does not state auth requirements, rate limits, or confirm read-only semantics outright, but 'makes no network requests' strongly implies a side-effect-free read.

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 dense sentence enumerating exactly what the status report contains, with the key constraint ('free, no network requests') placed last as a qualifier. No filler and nothing that fails to earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes the reported categories usefully. The only gap is the absence of any trigger guidance for a diagnostics tool, which is minor given its zero-parameter simplicity.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter semantics are required.

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 purpose: reporting health of each data source (google_trends, google_autocomplete, google_news, wikipedia), cache usage, observation archive, and effective settings. The enumerated resources make it clearly a diagnostics/status tool, distinct from the data-querying siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Free: makes no network requests' implies this is a safe, costless call to make before or instead of network-dependent tools, which is real usage guidance. However, it never states the diagnostic conditions that should trigger a call (e.g., after an error, to check quota/state), so usage remains implied rather than explicit.

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