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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the specific probe dimensions (protocol version, D1 database reachability, upstream latency), which is genuine behavioral content. It does not state that the call is read-only/side-effect free, whether it can fail or time out, or how a degraded result is represented.

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?

A single telegraphic sentence with zero padding; every token maps to a distinct thing the probe checks. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted and the most important element (server health) leads.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source on what comes back — and it enumerates the return categories, which is the essential information for this tool. A note on failure/timeout behavior would make it complete, but the scope is small enough that the gap is minor.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies no input is needed and spends its words on outputs instead.

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 names a specific resource (the MCP server) and enumerates exactly what the probe reports: protocol version, D1 reachability, and upstream latency. This clearly separates it from every sibling, all of which are trading/market/account operations. It lacks an explicit verb, but the resource list 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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this (e.g., 'use to verify connectivity before diagnosing failures'), but for a zero-argument diagnostic endpoint the intended usage is strongly implied by the name and the enumerated probes. No alternatives or exclusions are named, and none are really needed.

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