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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the source endpoint, the fact that it validates fee-route configuration at 0.85%, and a scope limit (not per-token data). It does not describe response shape, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Three tight fragments, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler; every clause carries information (endpoint, what is verified, fee rate, scope exclusion).

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, no-output-schema health probe, the description tells the agent what a successful call means and what the tool is not for. Return-field specifics are absent, but the tool's simplicity makes this near-complete.

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 zero parameters and the schema has additionalProperties=false with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 resource and effect: a health/readiness check backed by GET /api/health that confirms the origin is up and fee routes are configured. The trailing 'Not per-token data' explicitly separates it from the token-oriented siblings (memeswap_token, memeswap_tokens). The phrase 'Readiness for meme research / buy routing' is slightly jargon-y but still legible.

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?

Usage is implied (call it to verify the service is up and fee routing is configured before researching or buying), and the 'Not per-token data' clause excludes one sibling. No explicit when-to-use condition or named alternative is given, so guidance remains inferential.

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