source_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool reports configuration and budget, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly clarify that it has no side effects or mention any caveats (e.g., caching, staleness). This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 is two concise sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the usage guidance immediately following. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the existence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. Nothing an agent needs to know to call it correctly is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage (empty object), so the description has nothing to add for parameters. Per calibration, a tool with 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') followed by the precise resource ('which distributors are configured and how much request budget is left'). It uniquely distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_parts or clear_cache, which clearly have different functions.

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 an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when a search reports a rate limit error'), making the intended context clear. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it misses the full when/when-not/alternatives structure that would merit a 5.

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