Probe API endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context: paths are verified against official docs, so failures indicate auth/entitlement issues rather than invalid paths. However, it does not explicitly state whether the probe is read-only, what output format to expect, or any side effects, which would provide fuller transparency.

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?

Two focused sentences with the main action and outcome front-loaded in the first. The second sentence earns its place by preempting a likely misinterpretation of failures.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what the report tells you, and how to interpret failures. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 there is no schema-level ambiguity to resolve. The description still adds useful domain meaning by explaining what 'resolve' means in terms of account entitlements.

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 specific action ('Probe every configured endpoint') and the expected outcome ('report which resolve on your account'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling data-retrieval tools by focusing on endpoint connectivity rather than market 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 context for use is clear: this is the tool to run when you need to check whether configured API endpoints are reachable and authorized for the account. It advises how to interpret failures (expired token or missing entitlement), which is useful guidance. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusion conditions, but no sibling tool serves the same diagnostic role.

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