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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses what is pinged, the conditional behavior for the Gateway ('if configured'), the return fields (latency, status, verdict), and the cost of $0.001 USDC per call. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only safety or auth/rate-limit behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 short sentences, all front-loaded: purpose first, then mechanism, return values, usage context, and cost. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description provides everything needed: what is checked, conditional Gateway behavior, return fields, the health verdict scale, usage context, and cost. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it is missing.

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 adds no parameter information because none exists, and the empty schema is consistent with the description's no-input nature.

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 and resource: 'Check health of Drift Protocol APIs.' It names the exact components pinged (Drift Data API and optionally Drift Gateway), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like drift_place_bet or drift_open_positions.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'Useful before placing bets or querying positions.' This tells the agent when the tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative health-check tools, which are not present in the sibling list anyway.

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