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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior those annotations do not capture: it performs a real probe by counting rows in the projects and quotes tables and reports latency and an error shape, which tells the agent the call touches a live store and can fail in a way worth retrying.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then documents the exact fields returned, so the agent knows what to expect. Both sentences are dense with useful detail, and although the second is long, nothing in it is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the full burden of documenting the return value, and it does: it names every field and both success and failure shapes for `store`. For a zero-parameter read-only diagnostic tool, nothing needed to call it or interpret it is missing.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are 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 states a specific verb and resource: a "diagnostic snapshot of the deployed MCP server plus a live probe of its store". That clearly separates it from the data-reading siblings such as get_project, get_schema, and run_quote, since this tool reports server and store status rather than domain content.

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 never says when to call this tool or that other tools exist for other needs; usage can be inferred only from the words "diagnostic" and "health check" in the title. A single clause such as "use this to verify connectivity and data availability before other calls" would make the guidance explicit.

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