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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the useful detail that the check covers both the service and the storage roots, but says nothing about what a failure looks like or what the response contains.

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?

A single six-word phrase with zero filler, and the resource being checked is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a health probe, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and rich annotations, the definition is close to sufficient, but because there is no output schema the description should say what a health result looks like (status object, root list, error behavior). That gap keeps it at adequate rather than complete.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is a closed empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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?

The description names a concrete verb and resource: it checks the corpus service and storage roots, which is a health/diagnostic operation clearly distinct from data-querying siblings like corpus_catalog or list_datasets. The only shortfall is that 'Check' doesn't say what is verified or returned, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can tell what the tool is for.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of failure conditions or when it should be avoided. The agent must infer that this is a health probe and that no siblings cover that need.

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