Test AIOrouter Connection

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it checks API key validity but does not describe what the result looks like (e.g., success/error format) or any potential network side effects. Given the annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, focused sentence with no waste. It front-loads the core action and is appropriately sized for a trivial connection test.

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 zero-parameter health check tool with a readOnly annotation, the description is sufficient to convey the core action. However, since there is no output schema, it would benefit from stating what the response indicates (e.g., valid/invalid). Hence a 4.

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, so the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the empty schema leaves nothing to clarify.

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 uses a specific verb ('test') and resource ('AIOrouter API key') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like aiorouter_chat or aiorouter_list_models. It unambiguously states the purpose of validating the API key.

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 clearly implies the tool is for verifying API key validity before using other tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear enough for a simple health check, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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