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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool shows but does not explicitly disclose read-only behavior, potential side effects, cost, or what TTL specifically refers to. The term 'health check' weakly implies safety, but the disclosure is minimal.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the tool as a health check and names the two key outputs. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and a simple health-check purpose, the description names the essential pieces (pending authorization codes and TTL). It is mostly complete, though it could benefit from clarifying TTL and differentiating from 'service_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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids parameter-related details since none exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('shows') and a specific resource ('pending authorization codes and TTL'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'service_status', but the named metrics set it apart.

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 'Health check' implies a usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'service_status' or other alternatives. The description provides a general idea but lacks when-to-use/when-not-to-use direction.

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