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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context about the four components checked and the diagnostic role, going beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't disclose return format (covered by output schema) or any potential edge cases.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Check whether'), enumerates components concisely, and provides usage guidance without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present and a single boolean parameter, the description is complete: it specifies what is checked, when to use it, and how it fits as a diagnostic step. No critical information about behavior or return values is missing given the structured data.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter 'sandbox' has a thorough schema description explaining its behavior and constraints. The tool description adds no param-specific information, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool checks whether four specific components of a Cello integration are working, listing them explicitly. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like cello_get_events or cello_get_program_metrics.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: when a user asks if their integration is working or why events aren't processed, and as a first diagnostic step before checking the event feed. This provides clear context and implies the alternative (cello_get_events) for event-level diagnosis.

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