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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating call. The description usefully adds the concrete endpoint ('Formbricks v2: GET /health'), which helps with debugging, but says nothing about what a success vs. failure response looks like. Some added value beyond annotations, but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding; the purpose is front-loaded and the endpoint detail follows. Nothing is wasted.

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 trivial no-argument probe with no output schema, the definition covers what the agent needs to invoke it. It could have noted the expected return (e.g., an ok/status payload) since no output schema exists, but that is a minor gap for a tool this simple.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Check') and resource ('Formbricks API'), and the phrase 'is reachable' pins the scope to connectivity rather than data retrieval. This cleanly distinguishes it from every sibling, which all operate on contacts, responses, webhooks, surveys, or users.

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 purpose inherently implies when to use it (verifying connectivity/availability before or during other calls), but the description never states that context explicitly and names no alternatives. For a zero-parameter health probe this is adequate but leaves the trigger condition to inference.

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