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

With annotations already declaring read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, the description adds value by specifying the return contents (version, corpus, freshness) and the privacy guarantee of exposing 'no credentials and no merchant data.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent understand what to expect from the call.

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?

Three short sentences each provide distinct value: what the tool reports, when to use it, and safety guarantees. There is no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary detail, and the most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, output contents, usage timing, and safety. It is complete enough for an agent to decide whether and when to invoke this tool.

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 input schema is empty. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than parameter explanations, meeting the baseline 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a status/health check reporting 'Server version, corpus contents and freshness,' which is a specific verb+resource construction. It distinctly differs from the sibling documentation tools by focusing on connectivity confirmation rather than content lookup.

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 phrase 'Safe first call to confirm the connection works' provides explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool—first, to verify connectivity. The reassurance that it exposes no credentials or merchant data reinforces its suitability as a safe preliminary probe. It doesn't name specific alternatives, but the use case is clear given the tool's nature.

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