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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's added value is the no-key/no-quota detail, which is beyond annotations. It also clarifies that the database reachability is part of the check. No contradictions. It doesn't describe the return format, but the output schema covers that.

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 sentences, no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the auth/quota caveat is stated directly. Every word 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, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the operation's scope, auth requirements, and quota usage. Nothing essential 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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially), so the description has no parameter burden. Baseline is 4 for zero-param tools. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist.

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 the tool checks API and database health, which is a specific verb+resource. It's distinct from all sibling tools (translation, term management, etc.), so an agent can immediately identify it as the health check.

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 use it: it's a lightweight check that requires no API key and no quota, suggesting it can be used freely. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclude other tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer it's for verifying service availability before other operations.

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