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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety traits. It adds a small behavioral nuance with 'authoritative', implying this hits the source of truth rather than a cached view, but gives no further details such as response behavior or potential latency.

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 a single sentence with no waste. Every word earns its place, and the core action and target are front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple, parameterless, and protected by annotations, but there is no output schema and the description gives no hint of what a status response looks like. An agent knows what the tool does but gets little context about the meaning or format of the status result, leaving some ambiguity given the sibling health/identity/payment checks.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to explain parameter syntax or semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('authoritative backend status'), clearly indicating this tool checks overall backend status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_history and check_identity by using the qualifier 'authoritative backend status', though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_history, check_identity, or verify_provider. The word 'authoritative' hints that this is the canonical status check, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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