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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint are already present in annotations, and the description adds behavioral context beyond them: it checks all venues RAVN routes through and is intended as a pre-swap degradation signal. It does not go into response interpretation, but an output schema is present.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then immediately adds the practical usage trigger. No filler or repetition of structured metadata.

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 health check with an output schema, the description is fully adequate: it names the scope, the timing, and the purpose. Nothing necessary for an agent to decide to call it is missing.

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 are zero parameters, so the 0-parameter baseline applies and no parameter documentation is required. The description does not need to add parameter meaning because there is nothing to configure.

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 a concrete action ('liveness check') and a specific resource ('every venue RAVN routes through'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. The scope is clearly differentiated from swap execution and quoting siblings by focusing on route/venue health.

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 usage context: call before a swap when you want advance knowledge of route degradation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full sibling routing guidance.

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