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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that no task content is sent, that each health component is reported separately, and that the result contains app-specific setup steps. These are useful behavioral details not covered by the readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive hints.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every sentence contributes: purpose, usage triggers, privacy behavior, and setup guidance. The last sentence is slightly long but still earns its place by covering setup and Pro questions.

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-parameter health-check tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what is checked, when to call it, privacy, and the kind of setup guidance returned. Annotations already cover safety and idempotency, so no important context 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to add, and the description appropriately does not invent any.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking whether Edge works in this session, with four named components reported separately. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools, which focus on skills, tools, feedback, and activity rather than Edge health.

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?

It gives explicit invocation conditions: when Edge seems unavailable, when the user asks about Edge status, before relying on Edge after a pause, and when the user asks about setup, Pro access, or using Edge more often. It also explicitly says not to fetch getedge.cc pages or run commands for setup questions, preventing a common wrong action.

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