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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally; 'read-only' in the description is redundant with that. The description does add 'Free' and clarifies that scope=session checks the live MCP connection, which is modest extra context but not a rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the read-only/free qualifier and the mode routing are front-loaded so an agent can decide and call in one pass.

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-required-parameter, single-enum tool with no output schema and full safety annotations, the definition is nearly complete. It could briefly indicate what a health result reports (status/connectivity), but nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

The description restates the two scope values, but the schema's enum description already documents 'service checks the deployment; session checks the current MCP connection' at 100% coverage. The description adds only marginal value beyond the structured field, so the baseline 3 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 verb+resource ('health check') and immediately names the two operational modes (deployment health vs. current MCP session), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns and at what scope. It is unambiguous and needs no sibling differentiation since no other sibling performs health checks.

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?

'Use scope=service for deployment health or scope=session to verify the current MCP session' gives explicit selection criteria between the two modes. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it (e.g., it is not a diagnostic for query failures), but the routing guidance is clear and actionable.

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