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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'report' and the overall health-check framing imply a read-only, non-mutating operation. However, it does not explicitly state 'does not modify data' or mention any access/rate limitations, which would have made it fully explicit.

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 filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and key details, and the second sentence provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 parameters and an output schema present, the description gives all necessary context: what the tool reports, why it matters, and when to use it. It also names the sibling tools that produce the data being checked, making it clear why this health check exists in the tool ecosystem.

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 and an empty schema, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly does not attempt to add parameter details that don't exist.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Report') and clearly identifies the resource (freshness and health of the cross-chain program/token discovery pipeline). It lists concrete outputs (cron last ran, counts per chain, failed scans) and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming discover_programs and search_tokens as the data it helps validate.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to check whether discover_programs / search_tokens data is current before relying on it.' This clearly indicates the tool is a prerequisite check for other discovery tools, providing both context and an alternative (the named sibling tools).

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