Is this API / provider down right now?

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

Despite annotations already covering the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), the description adds substantial context: freshness (~4 min checks), quota/pricing model, an alias, and the shape of the returned verdict fields. This goes well beyond the structured data.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage in the first two sentences; the provider list, return fields, pricing and alias are dense but each earns its place. Slightly crammed but no 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the key return fields (verdict, recommended_action, open incidents, affected components, checked_at, freshness). For a single-param read tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating ~40 supported providers and giving a concrete call example, which helps the agent pick a valid provider id rather than guessing.

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?

States a specific verb (check), resource (API/provider status) and scope (up, degraded or down right now), and names the covered providers (~40). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_providers or check_model_deprecation.

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 says when to call it ('BEFORE calling a provider's API, or right after you get 5xx/429/timeout errors') and the decision it supports (retry, wait or switch to a fallback). Nothing about timing is left to inference.

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