Check whether a service is reporting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses three diagnostic outcomes (never reported, stopped, no release attached) and warns about a misleading healthy-looking case. However, it does not describe the exact output format or side effects, but being a check, it is likely read-only.

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?

Two concise, information-dense sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second adds crucial diagnostic detail and usage context. Every word earns 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?

The tool has a simple one-parameter signature, and the description covers typical usage scenarios and caveats. It lacks an output schema but the description explains the diagnostic categories, making it fairly complete for its 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and thoroughly explains the parameter, so the description does not need to add param details. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the rich schema.

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 the tool's purpose: checking whether telemetry is arriving and diagnosing why it isn't. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on service telemetry health, not findings or installation.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'after installing, and any time the feed is empty and that seems surprising.' This provides strong contextual guidance and implies alternatives are for other scenarios.

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