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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by detailing operational behavior: it runs from the server's network path, returns only booleans/counts/hosts, never leaks secrets, and distinguishes 'not configured' from 'unreachable'. It also references the go_live.posture pattern, making the tool's behavior fully transparent.

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 description is overly verbose and repetitive. Key points (the contrast with local curl, the error states, the no-secret guarantee) are reiterated multiple times in slightly different wording. A more concise treatment would convey the same information without redundancy, making it harder to parse quickly.

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?

Despite the verbosity, the description provides rich context: it explains the tool's purpose, the distinction between configurations, the security aspect, and the expected output type. With an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavioral context without needing to detail return values.

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 only parameter, caller_id, is not mentioned or explained in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about its purpose or format, leaving the agent to guess. This is a significant gap for a parameter that, while optional, should be documented.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Live reachability probe against the deployed execution sidecar.' It distinguishes itself from a local curl command, explaining that it tests the server's network path rather than the tester's shell. This makes the purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from related tools.

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?

The description explicitly explains when to use this tool over the alternative: 'THE tool that replaces a tester's local curl $SIDECAR_URL/health' and elaborates why the local curl is insufficient. It also describes the error behavior (CONFIG_ERROR when unconfigured, unreachable when configured but not reachable), providing clear guidance on when it applies.

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