health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the two things being probed (connectivity and credentials) and that these are checked against the 'configured store', implying a non-mutating diagnostic. It does not say whether failure surfaces as an error or a status value, nor what permissions the check itself needs.

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 zero filler. Every word ('connectivity', 'credentials', 'configured store') conveys scope, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information about this tool. It covers what is checked but omits what the result looks like (boolean, status message, raised error) and what a failed check implies, leaving an agent guessing about the return contract.

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 parameter semantics default to a baseline of 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify here.

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 (check) and specific resources (connectivity and credentials against the configured store), which is more than a restatement of the name 'health_check'. It is unambiguously a diagnostic tool, clearly distinct from the inventory/order/product siblings even without naming them explicitly.

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 usage context is implied: reach for this to verify that the configured store is reachable and that credentials work. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (there are none among the siblings, which helps, but it is not stated).

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