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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the self-check is deterministic, runs the structural detectors on a fixed sample, and returns expected flag counts, plus that the call is local-only and avoids the database.

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 with the resource first and the payload detail in a parenthetical, so it is front-loaded and free of filler. The parenthetical is somewhat dense for a description, but no sentence fails to earn 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only health tool with no output schema, the description nevertheless tells the agent what comes back (uptime, self-check flag counts) and where the check runs. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return server health') and enumerates the payload: process uptime plus a deterministic engine self-check. The sibling tools (get_descriptor, list_checks, review_legal_text) do not overlap, so no explicit sibling disambiguation is needed, but the description also never names them.

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?

Usage is implied by the nature of a health endpoint and by 'Local-only; no database on the path', which signals a cheap, safe diagnostic. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative for deeper diagnostics.

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