Check Connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, providing a solid safety profile. The description adds that it tests both the primary feed and its fallback, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the test performs network calls, its output format, or any potential latency/rate-limit implications. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Tests' and the specific resource. It wastes no words and is easy to parse at a glance.

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 rich annotations, the description adequately conveys the purpose. It could potentially mention what the output looks like (e.g., success/failure status) but given the tool's simplicity and name, the current description is nearly complete.

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?

With 0 parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter details. The input schema is empty and trivially 100% covered, so the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Tests') and identifies a clear resource ('the configured price feed and its Yahoo Finance fallback'). This distinguishes it from sibling data retrieval tools and other validation tools like validate_bls_key, which focus on key validation rather than feed connectivity.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool to verify that the price feed and fallback are working. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or contexts where it should not be used. Given sibling tools like get_data_sources or validate_bls_key, some contrast would improve clarity.

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