get_api_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a lighter burden. The description adds 'Platform health and sync status' but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like caching, rate limits, or what 'sync status' means beyond the annotations. It provides minimal additional behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise. However, it could be slightly longer to add more value without being verbose. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description could still benefit from elaborating on what 'health' and 'sync status' include. It is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about the exact nature of the information returned.

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 input schema is fully covered (100%). The description does not add parameter-specific information, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema already handles everything.

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 tool name 'get_api_status' combined with the description 'Platform health and sync status' clearly and specifically states the resource (platform health and sync status) and the action (getting). It is well-differentiated from sibling tools, which are all card-related or other distinct 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?

No explicit guidelines are given for when to use versus alternatives, but the tool's domain is distinctly different from all sibling tools (cards, prices, rules, etc.), making its usage context obvious. The lack of explicit guidance does not cause confusion due to the uniqueness of the tool.

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