Check Worker liveness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it never charges, never runs research, requires no payment headers, and does not consume the shared 10-call trial or paid rate limits. It also discloses that extra keys are rejected and {} is valid, which is useful call behavior not present in the schema.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose before diving into parameter behavior and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, though the long list of exclusions and alternatives makes it slightly heavy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with payment and rate-limit implications.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter behavior, alternatives, authentication requirements, cost implications, and rate-limit consumption. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining the effect of include_backends: omitting it or setting it true keeps source_backends, while setting false drops that object while status and payments_ready still return. This goes beyond the schema's 'Optional boolean. Default true.' and helps the agent understand the parameter's behavioral impact.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('MentionForge Worker liveness') and clarifies that it also reports whether paid research can settle. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_pricing, get_example, and research_mentions as alternatives, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('when you only need uptime') and names alternatives for other needs: get_pricing for list price or trial terms, get_example for a sample payload, research_mentions for cited mentions. It also states exclusions: never charges, never runs research, needs no X-Wallet, Idempotency-Key, or PAYMENT-SIGNATURE, and does not consume trial or paid rate limits.

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