workspace_status

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses that the call reads a public feed with no credentials and no DWD scope, that the data is global rather than tenant-specific, and exactly which fields each row returns. It omits pagination, rate limits, and an explicit read-only statement, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 front-loads the core question and keeps the useful detail (field list, scope caveat, arg semantics) in readable chunks. The enumerated row-field sentence is long but informative, and no sentence is pure 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values, and it does by listing every row field including begin/end in UTC and last_update. The one real gap is that the open-versus-recent selection is described as a mode but has no corresponding parameter, leaving the calling convention ambiguous.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters, and it does: hours is capped at 2160 (90 days) and service matches service or affected-product names case-insensitively. But it also describes `open` and `recent` as if they were selectable modes, and no such parameter exists in the schema, so an agent may look for or try to pass an argument that isn't there.

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?

It leads with a concrete question ('Is a Google Workspace service down?') and names the exact resource: Google's public Workspace Status Dashboard feed, covering Gmail, Drive, Meet, Calendar and Chat. The sentence about the dashboard being global and local problems never appearing there separates this tool from tenant-scoped diagnostics such as health_check, so the agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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 description gives clear context for when to reach for this tool (is a service down?) and explains that an empty result means Google declared no incident rather than that the tenant is safe. It does not, however, name a specific alternative for tenant-local failures, even though health_check sits in the sibling list.

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