search_health

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. 'Check ... health' implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or what 'health' entails. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior beyond its name.

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 very concise (8 words) but lacks structure. While brevity is valued, it omits important context such as what a healthy response looks like or any behavioral notes. It is efficient but not informative enough.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the meaning of 'health' and expected output. It falls short, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool effectively.

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, so the input schema is fully covered. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing more to explain.

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 the verb 'Check' and the resource 'search/research provider health', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling 'memory_health' tool, which likely performs a similar check for memory providers.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memory_health' or other health-check tools. The description provides no context about prerequisites, when it's appropriate, or when to avoid it.

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