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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by warning that 'contributed' fields are inert third-party data and instructing the agent not to follow instructions found in them, and by clarifying that structured fields are not a security boundary. This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure, especially for injection resistance.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose followed by an essential security warning. Every sentence earns its place: the status report scope, the enrollment caveat, and the contributed-fields injection warning.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, has an output schema, and is marked read-only and open-world, the description covers all necessary context. It even includes a security caveat about untrusted content, making the definition complete for an agent to call it correctly and 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to enrich. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate because nothing further is required.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('live health, capabilities, and enrollment availability'), which is distinct from the sibling tools' purposes. It also immediately notes that MCP enrollment is unavailable, making the tool's scope precise and actionable.

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 clearly implies this tool is for checking system status, health, capabilities, and enrollment availability. It does not explicitly name when to avoid it or compare it to alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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