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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well. It discloses that optional dependencies report 'disabled' without degrading overall status, that the call is cheap, and that it is safe to poll frequently. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the bare input/output contract.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, followed by return shape, component semantics, failure behavior, and operational guidance. Every sentence adds useful information, and none repeats the input schema or annotations.

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 probe with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains the return structure, defines the ambiguous 'semantic' component, clarifies optional dependency behavior, and gives explicit polling guidance. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 there is no parameter documentation burden. The description focuses on the response shape and component meanings instead, which is the appropriate use of description space given the empty input schema.

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 opens with 'Liveness + dependency probe', which clearly states the tool's function, and then specifies exactly what it returns: status, version, and component health. This is distinct from the many sibling tools because it is explicitly the healthcheck/status probe rather than an account, memory, or work 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?

The description gives clear usage context: 'Always cheap; safe to poll on a 10s interval. Used by Docker healthcheck and the /health HTTP route.' This tells an agent when polling is appropriate, though it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as `version` or state when not to use this tool.

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