Get API health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that it checks SERP providers in addition to general API health, which is useful context. No contradictions with annotations. It doesn't disclose the return format or what specific health indicators are measured, but given annotation coverage, a 3 is reasonable.

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 short sentence with no waste. However, there is a minor typo ('bisibility' should be 'visibility'), which slightly detracts from quality. Otherwise, it's appropriately compact and front-loaded.

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 parameterless health check tool with readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It could benefit from noting what health information is returned (e.g., API status, per-provider availability) and whether any auth is required, but given the tool's simplicity and strong annotation coverage, it's adequate.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (no parameters to document). With 0 params, baseline is 4. The description reasonably clarifies what the tool checks (API health and SERP providers), which is the only semantic meaning needed 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+resource ('Check visibility API health') that states the tool's core function, and mentions it also checks configured SERP providers. However, it's somewhat vague — 'health' is broad, and it doesn't detail what health information is returned (uptime, error rates, provider status?). It distinguishes from siblings reasonably since no other tool is titled for health checks.

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 this is a diagnostic/read tool by its name and title, and the readOnlyHint annotation reinforces safe read usage. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_provider_rates, test_provider_connection, list_providers), nor are exclusions stated. There is no clear context about when a health check is appropriate.

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