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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond them: it is public, requires no credentials, and reports version/deployment metadata. It also sets expectations by stating it does not prove source freshness, which prevents over-interpretation of the health status.

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?

Four short, purposeful sentences front-load the core behavior and return content, then cover usage, limitations, and alternatives. No sentence is wasted or redundant with the annotations.

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-argument read-only health check, the description fully covers what the tool returns, when to use it, what it does not do, and where to go for related capabilities. Even without an output schema, the key response fields are enumerated.

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 input schema is empty and additional properties are disallowed, so there are no parameters to document. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'no credentials or arguments,' which removes any ambiguity about hidden or required inputs.

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 and resource: checking that the health endpoint returns product.health.v1 metadata. It also lists the exact fields returned and differentiates itself from feed-fetching tools, so an agent can identify its purpose immediately.

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?

Explicitly says to use it for connection and version diagnosis, and clarifies what it does not do—fetch the editorial feed or prove source freshness. It also names list_capabilities as the alternative for supported surfaces and content limits, giving clear routing guidance.

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