healthcheck

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 fully covers the side-effect profile ('never mutates'), the underlying action (live GET on the default account's profile), and the failure behavior (ok=false with a hint when no account is set), leaving no ambiguity.

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 tight sentences: the first upfront states the tool's purpose and scope, and the second adds behavior and failure details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 parameterless healthcheck with an output schema present, the description covers what is verified, how it verifies it, when it is safe to call, and what happens in the unconfigured case. Nothing material needed to invoke or interpret the tool 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 and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter details, matching the baseline expected for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Verify') and a clear resource: MCP configuration readiness, including accounts, token backend, and Graph reachability. It also explains the operational action ('Does a live GET on the default account's profile'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools like get_profile or list_accounts.

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?

It explicitly states this is safe to call anytime and never mutates, which gives clear situational guidance. It does not directly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the diagnostic framing and the note about returning ok=false when no account is set make the intended use clear.

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