MCP Health Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe diagnostic call. The description adds useful context about what status information is available and how to interpret it, which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first states what the tool returns, the second gives the trigger condition and recommended action. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 status endpoint with an output schema and strong annotations, this description is fully adequate. It tells the agent when to call, what to inspect, and what action to take, so no critical context is missing.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden. The description still adds value by pointing the agent to specific health fields to inspect, which is the closest analog to parameter guidance for this 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 clearly identifies the tool as an MCP server status/health check, listing specific exposed areas: cascade mode, rate-limiter usage, cache size, and config. This distinguishes it from the search-oriented sibling tools, even 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 states when to call the tool ('if searches start failing or returning empty') and what to do with the results ('check cascade.totalCaptchas and rateLimiter.queueSize, and reduce search volume if they are high'). This leaves no ambiguity about the intended use case.

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