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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. Because there is no output schema, the description usefully carries the burden of disclosing what comes back (routing engine state, trade index staleness, status page link), which is behavior-adjacent content the annotations do not provide.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then the three concrete outputs. No filler, no redundancy, and the colon structure keeps the enumeration scannable.

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, a fully covered empty schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies most of what an agent needs by enumerating the returned signals. It could go slightly further on what 'every chain' means in scope or how the health values are shaped, but no output schema exists to cover that either, so the gap is modest.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a zero-parameter schema applies, and nothing in the description misrepresents the calling surface.

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 resource (live health of every chain) and enumerates the concrete signals returned: routing engine state, indexed-trade freshness, and the status page link. This is far more specific than a name restatement, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similarly scoped sibling chord_overview.

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 phrase 'Live health' implies the moment to use it (checking system/chain operational state), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among siblings like chord_overview or chord_chains. Usage is left to inference.

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