check_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format looks like, rate limits, or authentication requirements. While 'check' implies a safe read, that is not explicit and the lack of any behavioral detail is a gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the outputs. It is appropriately sized for a no-arg health check. Slightly more structure (e.g., specifying return format) could improve it, but there is no waste.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for a status tool but could do more to describe what the health report includes or when to call it. It omits any behavioral details such as whether it is safe to call repeatedly or what a failure response looks like. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. It correctly lists the categories of information returned, which is relevant to what the agent gets back.

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 states a clear verb (check) and resource (AgentTax API health) plus enumerates what the check covers: endpoints, pricing tiers, registry validation status. This distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_tax or get_rates, which perform different operations. It would be a 5 if it explicitly named an alternative context, but the verb+resource is specific enough.

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 such as get_rates or track_payment. There is no mention of frequency, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and sibling context alone.

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