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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses caching (~30s), return fields (verdict, per-source health, age, error count, etc.), and that it's a public health check. This is sufficient behavioral context for a read-only status tool.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states action, second lists returns, third gives usage context. No redundancy; every sentence 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?

Despite no output schema, description thoroughly covers returned data: overall verdict, per-source health with age in seconds, recent 24h error count, MCP tool count, OpenAPI path count. Also mentions caching. Complete for a simple health check tool.

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?

Tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so description adds no parameter details. Baseline of 4 applies because the schema fully describes the inputs (none), and the description adds value elsewhere.

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?

Description clearly states 'Check live API & system health' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that are data-specific because 'status' is the only health check tool among many data endpoints.

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?

Explicitly says 'Useful for AI agents and developers to verify the platform is live before making requests', providing clear when-to-use guidance. No exclusions or alternatives needed due to the tool's unique purpose.

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