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

The description only says 'server status', which is minimal. It does not disclose what the client receives (e.g., status code, latency, health metrics) or whether any side effects exist. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and this one-sentence description is insufficient to understand the tool's behavior beyond its name.

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 a single short sentence that is appropriately sized for a health-check tool. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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 and no parameter schemas, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., output format, status fields). This lack of return-value information makes the description incomplete for an agent that needs to interpret results.

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, and the schema is an empty object, making parameter semantics irrelevant. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters, as there is nothing to clarify.

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 'SEOOracle v2 server status' clearly identifies the tool as a health check for the SEOOracle server. It uses a specific verb-plus-resource structure and differentiates well from sibling SEO-focused tools that perform audits, keyword research, or page speed checks.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or typical scenarios. It simply states the function without further context.

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