kakao_book_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it tests a real round-trip and checks the authentication key, which provides context beyond annotations and is consistent with them. It does not disclose output format but for a status tool that is acceptable.

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 that communicates the tool's purpose concisely without any fluff. Every word is informative.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema and clear siblings, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool does and its scope; nothing is missing for correct invocation.

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 the description has no need to explain them. The schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is 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?

The description clearly states a specific diagnostic purpose: checking authentication key setup and performing a single round-trip to the Kakao book search API. It is distinct from sibling tools (search, isbn, collect) which all query data; this tool verifies connectivity.

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 phrase 'connection check' explicitly signals when to use it (to verify API connectivity and authentication), but it does not name alternatives or state exclusions. The context is clear enough for agents to select it appropriately.

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