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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the endpoint is public and requires no key, and by exposing the possible billing states (test|gated) and runner_ready field.

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 sentence conveys the endpoint, publicness, key requirement, and response fields with no filler. The information is front-loaded and every clause adds value.

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 simple no-parameter health check, the description covers the essential invocation details and expected response content. It does not mention response format, but the tool's simplicity makes that an acceptable omission.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema carries no burden. The description still clarifies that no key is needed, which effectively documents the parameter-less invocation. This is a reasonable baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 this is a public readiness check via GET /health and lists the key fields (billing, runner_ready). It is specific and actionable, though the title is somewhat noisy with unrelated terms like rss digest and atom feed.

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 implies usage context: use this to check public readiness without authentication. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like digest_feed or verify_key, leaving some ambiguity about when this is preferred over alternatives.

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