whats_going_on_with

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by listing data sources (official status, components, incidents, Downdetector, StatusGator) and instructs how to present results. However, it does not disclose potential latency, failure modes, or limits on service name validity, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 composed of three focused sentences: purpose, usage context, and result presentation. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what the tool returns (data from multiple sources) and how to synthesize it. It covers the essential aspects for a single-parameter investigation tool. Minor gaps include error handling when a service is not found, but overall it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'service' is already described clearly with examples. The tool description adds a few extra examples ('aws s3') and states 'Accepts any service name,' but that is largely redundant with the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Investigate the status of a specific service in detail.' It uses a specific verb ('investigate') and identifies the resource ('a specific service'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'is_the_internet_on_fire' by focusing on individual services rather than global status.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Call this when you're seeing problems with a particular service' followed by concrete examples (deploys failing, API returning 500s). It gives clear when-to-use guidance but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the 'when-not' component.

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