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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the diagnostic nature and the data points reported, but it does not mention whether the check has side effects, requires special permissions, or how failures are surfaced.

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, front-loaded sentence states the action and immediately lists the three relevant outputs after a colon. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return categories (status, last error, current value count) and the parameter is fully specified by the schema. It could add more detail about output shape or error behavior, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple check 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 input schema already documents instance_id with 100% coverage, including the note that it can be a UUID or label. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 has a specific verb ('Prüft') and resource ('Verbindung einer Instanz'), and enumerates the exact outputs: status, last error, and current measurement count. This clearly identifies it as a connectivity/health check, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like poll_instance.

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 context is implied: use this tool when you need to verify an instance connection and observe its status, last error, and current metric count. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any reference to alternatives such as poll_instance or get_latest_metrics.

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