health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (health check) but lacks details on traits like response format, error handling, rate limits, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't provide enough context on behavior or usage, which could hinder an agent in selecting and invoking it correctly in varied scenarios.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundant information and focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter elaboration.

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's purpose as checking the health of SearXNG and the local cache, using specific verbs ('Check') and resources ('SearXNG', 'local cache'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'fetch_many' or 'search', which might also involve system status checks indirectly, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after errors or periodically), or compare it to sibling tools like 'search' that might serve similar diagnostic purposes, leaving the agent with minimal usage cues.

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