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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description earns little credit for the 'does not create an order or move funds' clause, which largely restates destructiveHint=false. It does add the useful scope detail that it reads public endpoints and MCP server info, but says nothing about failure modes, latency, or what a degraded response looks like.

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, the capability first and the scope exclusion second, with no filler. Every clause carries signal and nothing is buried.

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 and full annotation coverage, the definition is nearly sufficient. A brief hint about what the read returns (endpoint status vs. server metadata) would close the last gap, since no output schema exists to describe it.

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 and the schema is fully closed (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies 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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('public endpoint availability and current MCP server information'), so the agent knows this is a status/diagnostic call. It also explicitly separates itself from siblings that mutate state ('does not create an order or move funds'), covering create_quote, submit_payment_proof, and check_payment. The title's 'checkout health' framing is only loosely echoed, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 rather than stated: as a read-only health probe, it is the natural precondition check before creating quotes or submitting payments, and the negative clause rules out the transactional siblings. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'call before/after X' guidance, so the agent must infer the workflow position.

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