Check SpicyAPI service status

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds significant behavioral nuance: /readyz returns 404 by design on the public surface, readiness is registered only on the admin process, and 'operational' accounts for that. It also tells the agent not to report the 404 as an outage, which prevents a common misdiagnosis.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core function is front-loaded, followed by a clear usage caveat, an auth note, and a critical behavioral warning about 404 handling. The length is justified because it prevents a realistic false outage report.

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?

With an output schema availableable and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining operational context an agent needs: what to report, how to interpret 404, and the readiness endpoint's admin-only nature. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to document parameter semantics; it instead clarifies the input-free nature by noting no API key is required, which is sufficient.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('public health and readiness endpoints') and the intended use ('diagnostics or an explicit status request'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which cover docs, models, balance, usage, and task operations.

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 states when to use the tool ('for diagnostics or an explicit status request') and explicitly gives a when-not ('Not a prerequisite for task creation'). It also adds operational context with 'No API key is required,' giving the agent enough to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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