distributor_status

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

Without annotations, the description discloses some behavior: it returns no key values, provides a note for missing keys, and indicates the sources of the distributor list. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only, what happens on errors, or any side effects.

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 somewhat run-on and includes awkward phrasing (e.g., 'give it to the user'), though it is not excessively long. It lacks a front-loaded summary of the tool's action.

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 presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers the essentials but could be clearer about the tool's purpose and usage context. It does not leave critical gaps, but it is not fully polished.

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 single path parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the description adds no additional meaning about its role. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 conveys that the tool reports configured distributors and whether each has an API key, but it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a clear action verb. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_distributors or project_availability.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The mention of CLI commands explains how a user modifies the list, not when an agent should call this tool.

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