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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the return condition ('healthy=true only when every requested provider is operational or within allowed statuses'), but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or network behavior. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains purpose, usage, and basic behavior. Missing explicit return format details (e.g., exact JSON structure) but not critical for a boolean health check.

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%, so baseline 3. Descriptions for both parameters exist in the schema; the tool description does not add meaningful extra meaning beyond restating those definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('provider health'), clearly stating it returns healthy=true only when all requested providers are operational. It distinguishes from sibling tool ai_provider_status by focusing on aggregated multi-provider health checks.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: 'before starting work that depends on a provider, or to decide which provider to route to.' Does not mention when not to use or explicitly compare with sibling, but context is sufficient.

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