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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, closed-world operation, and the description adds operational context they cannot: the service scales to zero and takes roughly twenty minutes to start. That cold-start cost is exactly the kind of delay an agent would otherwise misread as an outage. It stops short of describing the shape of the status payload, but an 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, zero waste, and the most decision-relevant fact (the twenty-minute cold start) is placed where it will be read. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema handling return values, the description covers the essentials: what states are reported and why latency matters. It could go one step further by clarifying what an 'idle' model implies for a caller, but the gap is small.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly adds no parameter prose, avoiding noise about a non-existent input surface.

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 states precisely what the tool reports: API liveness plus whether the moderation model is running or idle. That is a specific resource-plus-state, distinguishing it cleanly from all the post/account/webhook siblings. An agent knows exactly which question this answers without opening the schema.

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 concrete trigger: check this to know how long a queued post will wait, tying usage to a real decision point. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling offers equivalent health information, so no routing ambiguity exists.

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