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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds only the scope: TCP checks across 5 servers. It does not disclose auth needs, timeout behavior, aggregation, or failure reporting, but with rich annotations the gap is less severe.

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 very short and front-loaded. The Korean translation duplicates the English content without adding information, but the definition remains efficient and easy to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry more of the return-shape burden. It only says 'status' in the Korean clause and never explains whether results are per-server or aggregate, leaving an agent to infer the output from the tool name.

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 an empty object schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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 names a resource and scope ('TCP health fan-out across 5 servers') but uses no explicit verb and does not differentiate from siblings like hq_health or reach_doctor. An agent can infer it checks server health, but the purpose is only implied.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided, and there is no mention of alternatives or when not to call this tool. The agent must guess its role relative to sibling health-check tools such as hq_health or reach_doctor.

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