Get Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context beyond that by disclosing the no-auth public access path and the failure semantics ('answers 503 when any check fails'). It never describes the success payload shape, which matters because there is no output schema, but the failure-mode disclosure is the more valuable disclosure for an agent diagnosing outages.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with scope, then auth, then failure behaviour, with no filler. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of decision-relevant information.

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 read-only probe with no output schema the description covers scope, auth and failure mode, which is most of what an agent needs. The unconsummated 'component' parameter and the absence of any success-response hint leave a clear gap given that 0% schema coverage removes the fallback.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'component' parameter, so the schema carries no meaning and the description was the only place to explain it. The description lists concepts (database, registry, regions) that plausibly map to 'component' values but never says so, nor whether supplying it narrows the check or what strings are accepted.

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?

A specific verb ('Check') applied to named resources (the control plane's database, registry, and every ready region), so the agent knows exactly what the tool inspects. It stops short of naming its neighbours getPublicStatus, getStatusPage or getAiStatus, so the boundary between these health-adjacent tools is left to inference.

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?

'Public: no token needed' establishes the auth precondition clearly, which is genuinely useful for deciding whether it can be called. However, nothing states when to prefer this over getPublicStatus, getStatusPage or getAiStatus, and no exclusions or alternatives are given, so usage is only implied by the name.

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