check_api_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool checks configuration and availability, which implies a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not disclose details like caching, network calls, or return format. For a zero-parameter tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. It front-loads the key purpose and provides specific details without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficient to convey purpose. It could be improved by mentioning what specific APIs are checked or what the output looks like, but for a simple status check it is nearly complete.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is fine as none exist. The input schema is empty and fully covered, so no additional value is needed.

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 purpose: checking which academic API sources are configured and available, and distinguishing between valid keys and those requiring setup. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('academic API sources'), and differentiates well from sibling tools that perform searches, analyses, or formatting.

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 implies usage for verifying API availability before using dependent tools, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. No statements about when not to use or prerequisites are provided, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity but could be more helpful.

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