get_health

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not mention what the response looks like (e.g., boolean, status object), whether it performs a lightweight check, or any side effects. This leaves the agent uncertain about the return format and how to interpret the result.

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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose. Every word is useful, and it is appropriately sized for such a simple tool with no parameters. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 and absence of parameters or annotations, the description is minimally viable but has clear gaps. Most notably, it does not specify the return value, which is critical since there is no output schema to provide that information. An agent may not know how to interpret the result or whether 'healthy' is conveyed as a boolean, string, or object.

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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. There is nothing to explain, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from this.

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 function: 'Check whether the RPC node is healthy.' This uses a specific verb ('check') and a specific resource ('RPC node'), and it is unambiguous in distinguishing itself from sibling tools like get_slot or get_balance, which query other kinds of data.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to determine node health, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Given the tool's simplicity, the implied usage is clear enough, but it lacks the explicit context present in higher-scoring examples.

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