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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that unreachable or indeterminate authorities yield 'unknown' rather than a fabricated healthy result — an important interpretation rule for an open-world probe.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the one non-obvious behavioral caveat. No filler and nothing restated from the annotations.

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 status probe, the inputs side is fully covered, but there is no output schema and the description never sketches what a status report contains (overall state, per-authority reachability, unknown states). Since no output schema exists, the description should carry that burden and only partially does.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly frames the call as configuration-driven ('configured ScriptMasterLabs authorities') rather than parameter-driven.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Report GhostKey server status' plus 'check whether configured ScriptMasterLabs authorities are reachable'. This differentiates it from siblings like ghostkey_session_status and ghostkey_device_pairing_status by scoping to server-level health rather than a specific session or pairing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrasing implies usage as a health/diagnostic probe, and the scope statement ('server status', 'authorities reachable') hints it is a starting point before session or pairing calls. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not route the agent to any alternative tool.

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