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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: 'No API key required' resolves an auth question the agent would otherwise have to guess at, and it enumerates what the call returns.

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?

Four tight sentences ordered by value: what it does, when to call it, what comes back, auth caveat. The return-field enumeration is slightly listy, but each item is informative given no output schema exists.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response, and it does so (status, version, tool count, capability count, solution count, timestamp). Combined with the no-API-key note, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly; only response types/format remain unspecified.

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 parameterless tool is 4. The schema accepts no properties and the description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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 verb+resource ('Checks that the Strale API is reachable and the MCP server is running'), which is clearly distinguishable from the capability-execution siblings like strale_execute. An agent can tell instantly this is a connectivity probe, not a business operation.

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?

Gives explicit triggers: 'Call this before a series of capability executions to verify connectivity, or when troubleshooting connection issues.' This is concrete when-to-use guidance rather than implied usage, and no sibling competes for this role.

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