health_check

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic behavior: input symptoms, output diagnosis with cause, treatment, prevention. However, it does not mention any limitations (e.g., only common diseases, confidence level, error handling for unrecognized symptoms), nor does it state whether the operation is read-only or safe. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, efficient sentence that includes the emoji for quick visual scanning, the action (symptom diagnosis), an example input, and the output structure. No unnecessary words; every part serves a purpose.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, input format, output content (cause, treatment, prevention), and species scope. However, it does not mention any constraints like 'common diseases only' or that it's for educational purposes, which would improve completeness.

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 100% with both parameters already described in detail (symptoms with examples, category with species list). The description reinforces these examples but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not elevate it.

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 it is a symptom diagnosis tool for reptile pets, matching input symptoms to common diseases and returning cause, treatment, and prevention advice. It provides an example symptom and specifies the covered species (turtles, snakes, lizards, frogs), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on genetics, identification, or statistics.

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 implicitly tells when to use (when you have symptoms to diagnose) without explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use. Given the clear purpose and distinct sibling tools (e.g., genetics_calculator, identify_turtle), the usage context is clear enough, but it lacks explicit guidance on limitations such as not replacing professional veterinary advice.

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