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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what the endpoint returns (health, coverage, cache policy, limitations) and identifies it as a GET request, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, error behavior, or response structure.

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 short sentences with no filler. The content is front-loaded with the value proposition, and the endpoint mapping is a useful one-line addition. Every phrase 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?

For a zero-parameter health check, the description is largely complete without an output schema: it names the four content areas returned and gives the API endpoint. It could be slightly richer by noting whether the output is a simple status object or contains nested sections, but an agent can call it and inspect the response safely.

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 parametersched, so the schema fully describes the input surface. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed beyond the schema. This is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless 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 states exactly what the tool reports: service health, coverage, cache policy, and limitations. Mapping it to GET /api/health removes ambiguity, and the sibling tools (explain_grade, score_deal) are clearly unrelated. This is a specific, unambiguous definition.

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 when to call it—when service status, coverage, cache policy, or limitations are needed—but does not explicitly state use cases or exclusions. It provides no guidance on alternatives, though the sibling tools are obviously different. Usage is clear by inference, not by instruction.

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