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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the output categories and the personal API key requirement, but does not cover error behavior, rate limits, or whether the dead-tool list is paginated.

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 purpose and return breakdown are front-loaded, followed immediately by the usage trigger and key requirement. There is no redundant or filler wording; every sentence contributes.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the necessary return categories and auth requirement. An agent has enough information to select and invoke it without further context.

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?

There is only one parameter, api_key, and the schema already describes it fully, including generation URL, Bearer-token transport, and account selection. The description only repeats that the key is needed and points to get_my_saved_tools, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 the exact resource (the user's saved stack) and the specific health breakdown it returns: alive, protected, slow, dead, and which tools are dead. This is clearly distinct from a saved-tools listing like get_my_saved_tools, even though it references that tool only for API-key context.

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?

It gives a clear trigger: use when the user asks whether their tools are up or wants a status report on their AI stack. It does not state when not to use it or name a sibling alternative such as get_my_saved_tools for a plain listing.

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