healthcheck

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the response includes both presence status and per-item remediation, and the call is explicitly side-effect-free in scope (no parameters). It stops short of describing output shape or freshness of the checks.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covering scope and return value, followed by a short parameter note. No filler, nothing that could be cut.

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 zero-argument read-only probe with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and that fixes are returned. A brief word on result format or whether checks are live vs cached would close the remaining gap.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4; the description reinforces this with an explicit 'Takes no parameters', removing any doubt the agent might have about needing input.

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?

States a specific verb (report) and resource (credentials and tools present for four named services), plus the added value of remediation guidance. None of the siblings (teaser_playlist, setlist_find, queue_status, etc.) do this, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 'what fixes each missing one' phrasing implies a diagnostic/setup-check use case, but the description never says when to call it (e.g., before attempting Spotify or Calendar operations) and names no alternatives or exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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