health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the action (checking reachability and API key), the return payload, and the typical use case. While it doesn't explicitly mention network calls or side effects, the read-only nature is strongly implied and the description is transparent enough for an agent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause provides value. It avoids unnecessary detail while covering purpose, use case, and return values.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully explains what it does and what the agent will receive. It also contextualizes when it's appropriate to invoke. There are no missing elements for an agent to correctly select and call this tool.

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, which sets a baseline of 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the schema is already fully covered.

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 verb 'Check' with a specific resource ('ausdata.io API'), and specifies exactly what is checked (reachability, API key validity). It also indicates the return values (server status, API version, remaining quota). This distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools, as it's a system health check.

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 phrase 'Useful for debugging MCP connection issues' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool. It provides clear context without naming alternatives, which is appropriate given that no sibling tool serves a similar purpose.

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