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

No annotations are provided, and the description only lists possible return values. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The agent lacks understanding of side effects or safety.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists components and values efficiently. Every part adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return format (e.g., whether it returns a single string or per-component object). It only lists components and values, leaving ambiguity about how the information is structured.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the return values (ok, degraded, down, n/d) and components, which is helpful for interpreting results.

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 purpose: reporting health of attestation service components. It lists specific components (worker, archive, signer, anchor) and possible values, distinguishing it from sibling tools which perform other operations.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention circumstances where it should not be used. No exclusions or context provided.

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