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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only check but provides no details on response format, latency, or what 'online' means. Adequate for a simple health check but could be more explicit.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no extraneous words. Every word serves a purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. However, since there is no output schema, it would benefit from mentioning return type (e.g., boolean or status).

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so description adds no param info, which is perfectly adequate. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description is clear.

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 checks server online status with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('CalmActiva MCP server online'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on facts, FAQ, products, etc.

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 use for verifying server availability before other operations, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or recommendations for alternatives. Still clear for its simplicity.

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