Health Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the specific focus on 'health and availability,' providing some context beyond annotations, but it does not describe return format, error behavior, or use cases. This is a moderate contribution.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and every word adds value.

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 health check with no parameters and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. However, since there is no output schema, the description could have clarified what the response looks like (e.g., status code, JSON body). The current text conveys the core intent without specifying return details.

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 100% schema coverage, leaving nothing for the description to add. The baseline score of 4 for 0-parameter tools is appropriate; the description correctly does not mention parameters.

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 tool's function: 'Check the health and availability of the Carbon Copy API.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies a distinct resource (API health), which differentiates it from the many data/action sibling tools.

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 description implies the tool is used to verify API health/availability, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. Given that no sibling tool serves this purpose, the context is clear, though explicit guidance is absent.

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