DeepSeek health check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and the fact that it reaches out to a remote service are covered. The description adds one useful nuance — it checks both configuration and acceptance, not just presence — but says nothing about latency, failure modes, or what an unconfigured/unaccepted result looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the operative detail ('configured and accepted') lands immediately. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter, read-only health check with no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it and interpret the answer as a pass/fail on credential validity. It could go slightly further by describing the shape of a negative result, but nothing essential is absent.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies; no parameter information is missing because none exists.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and a specific subject ('whether the DeepSeek credential is configured and accepted'), which is clearly distinct from file, chat, and session siblings. It stops short of naming the closest sibling (refresh_token), so the boundary between 'diagnose' and 'fix the credential' must be inferred.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can guess this is a pre-flight or troubleshooting check before calling chat, but the description never says when to call it or when to prefer refresh_token instead. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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