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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what 'healthy' means (HTTP reachability? process up?), whether the check is synchronous or has timeouts, or what happens when no preview is running.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — structurally sound. Its brevity is appropriate, though in this case it borders on under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it doesn't — an agent cannot tell whether it gets a boolean, a status string, or diagnostic details. Combined with the undocumented port parameter, the definition is too thin for reliable invocation.

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 only 50%: project_id is documented in the schema, but port has no description at all. The description only echoes 'preview port' without clarifying whether it's the local dev port, the preview-assigned port, or how it relates to project_id / the use_project session.

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 states a specific verb ('check') and resource ('preview port health'), which is clearer than the title alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as get_preview, get_status, or get_services, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus get_preview or get_status, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must a preview be started first). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and one-line purpose.

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