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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the probe is roughly a day stale, the tool does not perform live checks, the full enumerated value set, and a precise definition of when schema_status is 'breaking'. It also discloses the auth scheme (API key / Bearer, x402 settlement after HTTP 402), which no annotation conveys.

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 core sentences are front-loaded and dense with useful facts, but the trailing auth, signup URL, and especially the meteora_brief dynamic-pricing sentence are boilerplate about a different tool and do not earn their place here. Roughly a third of the text is off-topic for check_health.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming all three returned fields and enumerating the health_status values. The remaining gap is the both-optional parameter contract, which is left unexplained.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it frames record_id and mcp_url as alternative lookup keys and names search_listing as the source of record_id. It does not resolve precedence between them, which keeps it from a 5.

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 ('Read one verified listing's stored health_status, last_checked_at, and schema_status') and enumerates exactly what comes back. The word 'stored' plus 'This tool never pings the MCP' separates it cleanly from search_listing and from any live-probe behavior a sibling might imply.

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?

Gives a clear entry path ('Pass record_id from search_listing, or the exact mcp_url') and an explicit exclusion ('This tool never pings the MCP. Connect to mcp_url yourself'). It falls short of 5 because it never says which of the two optional parameters to prefer, nor what happens when neither is supplied and zero parameters are required.

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