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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral context: that it requires Business tier, that the server will respond with an authentication challenge, and that the client can prompt the user to connect their account. It also adds the 'do not fabricate' instruction, which is a behavioral guardrail beyond annotations.

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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence serves a purpose: main function, requirement, fallback behavior, and warning. It is front-loaded with the purpose and clearly structured, though the opening 'Whether' phrasing is slightly awkward.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it does, when to call it, what to expect (auth challenge), and how to handle errors (don't fabricate). It also fits well within the sibling context, as it's the only tool focused on scanner health.

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 nothing for the description to explain about inputs. Schema coverage is effectively 100% and baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate.

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 whether YOUR SkidGuard scanners are online and reporting, using a specific verb+resource pattern. The 'YOUR' prefix distinguishes it from generic scanner tools, and the focus on scanner health is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the Business tier requirement and notes the user is not signed in. It gives clear instructions to call the tool anyway for user requests about their own data, explaining the server will return an authentication challenge and the client can prompt for connection, while also warning not to fabricate an answer.

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