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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive; the description adds context by explaining that it validates the token, checks the processing chain, reports setup prerequisites, and optionally probes the render path. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 core purpose, but it repeats the same content in German and English, doubling its length without adding new information. The sentences are otherwise informative and well structured.

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?

For a read-only health-check tool with rich annotations, the description covers what is checked, what the setup report contains, and how the optional render probe works. It does not describe the exact response shape, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the detailed description of what is reported.

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 checkRender parameter is described both in the schema and in the tool description, but the reasoning parameter has no schema description and is not mentioned in the tool description at all. With 50% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate for the undocumented parameter, and it fails to do so.

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 it is a health/echo probe that verifies the partner token and the end-to-end processing chain. It also mentions the specific setup report and optional render check, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It gives explicit guidance to call this tool before building a template that will need to be viewed, and explains when checkRender should be enabled. It does not name alternative tools or explicit exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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