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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which the description aligns with by calling it a probe. The description adds specific context about what is checked (liveness and DB connectivity) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format, error behavior, or potential side effects. Since annotations cover safety, this is adequate but not richly descriptive.

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 a single sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('liveness + DB-connectivity probe') and the contract reference, making it immediately actionable. Every element contributes to understanding the tool.

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 simple health check with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It does not specify what happens on failure, but the output schema likely conveys return values. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand and call the tool correctly.

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 has no parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the description has nothing to add. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameters.

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 it is a liveness and DB-connectivity probe for the iCOMPLY contract. The verb 'probe' and the resource make the purpose clear and distinguishable from sibling tools, which are data queries and prediction operations. The term 'iCOMPLY contract' is somewhat internal but does not obscure the core function.

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 implies usage for checking service health, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the health check among siblings, although it is unique in that role. The context of being a health check is conveyed but not fully elaborated with exclusions or alternatives.

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