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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Health check' and 'shows' clearly convey a non-mutating, read-only operation and disclose what is returned. It does not address auth or freshness, but for a simple status tool the behavior is adequately transparent.

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 with no filler. Every phrase adds value: 'Health check' sets the intent, and 'number of active shortlinks and TTL' specifies the exact output.

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 parameterless health-check tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool reports; the only minor gap is not elaborating on what TTL represents or when to prefer this tool, but these are not blocking for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, no additional parameter explanation is required, and the description still clarifies the tool's output.

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 clear resource ('shortlinks'), scoped to active shortlinks and TTL. The 'health check' framing makes it obviously distinct from the create/delete/resolve siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Usage context is only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for health/status monitoring rather than creating, deleting, or resolving shortlinks. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named.

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