get_rail_status

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns per-rail status (OPERATIONAL/DEGRADED/DOWN), latency, last incident, and composite health score. It also lists the key rails, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does and returns.

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 sentences, efficiently front-loading the purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or filler content.

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 moderate complexity (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description covers when to use, what to expect, and how to interpret results. It is fully adequate for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds extra context: 'Omit to get all rails' for the 'rails' parameter, and 'Alternative to specifying rails by name' for 'region', providing guidance beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action: 'Get live health status of local payment rails'. It specifies the resource (payment rails) and scope (live health status), listing key rails which distinguishes it from siblings like get_settlement_status and settle.

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 explicitly says to call this tool before settlements to confirm rail health, and that a DEGRADED or DOWN status should trigger a HOLD decision. It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it, though the intent is well understood.

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