uvr_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds that results reflect 'last measured' backend support, hinting at cached rather than freshly probed data, but it doesn't state whether the call triggers any live measurement or how current the data is.

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?

One short sentence with the key subjects front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the compressed noun phrasing ('last measured backend support') costs a little interpretability.

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 explained, and the zero-parameter schema imposes no burden. The remaining gap is modest: vague domain terms ('engine readiness', 'backend support') would benefit from a phrase of clarification for an agent unfamiliar with the tooling.

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 baseline is 4 — there is no parameter meaning to supplement and nothing is missing on that axis.

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?

A specific verb (Report) with three named subjects: engine readiness, model roots, and last measured backend support. That clearly marks this as a diagnostic/status tool, distinguishing it from list_models or get_settings, though the terms 'engine readiness' and 'backend support' are left undefined.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight or troubleshooting check, but the description never says when to call it versus get_settings, list_models, or verify_catalog. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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