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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect profile are fully covered. The description's one added piece of information is that the status is 'offentlig' (public), implying no auth or workspace scoping is needed, which is useful but thin beyond that.

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?

A single short sentence with the key qualifiers (public, read-only, health status) up front and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 zero parameters, full annotation coverage and an output schema that documents the returned health payload, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool. Only a note on when to prefer it over sibling tools like revly_kontekst is absent.

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, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing or misleading.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returnerer ... helsestatusen for Revly'), so an agent knows immediately this returns service health. It does not differentiate against siblings such as revly_kontekst, which also looks like a service-level informational tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: an agent can infer 'call this to check whether Revly is up', but the description names no condition, no exclusion, and no alternative among the ten siblings. Typical of a health-check tool, but no explicit guidance is given.

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