check_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful scope: health, quota, and capabilities. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the read-only flag.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core function. No fluff; every word contributes. This is a model of conciseness.

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 health-check tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It states what is checked and when it's useful. Minor ambiguity in 'capabilities' but not critical for invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% (the optional 'account' parameter is fully described). The description adds no parameter details beyond saying 'email accounts', but the schema already does the heavy lifting. 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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('connection health, quota, and capabilities for email accounts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_accounts or get_email_stats, as it is the only tool focused on health/diagnostics.

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 description provides some usage context ('Useful for diagnosing issues') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It implies use for troubleshooting, which is a clear contextual signal.

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