her_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the function's read-only nature implicitly, details the output contents, and documents the output_mode parameter. It does not mention errors or rate limits, but for a simple health check the behavior is clearly communicated.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Tips). It is mostly concise, though the second 'Returns' statement partially repeats the opening sentence. Overall it is efficient and front-loaded.

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, one optional parameter, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, the parameter's behavior, and even provides strategic usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 schema provides only type and default for output_mode, with no description. The description adds concrete semantics: 'Response format — "json" (default) or "text"', which fully explains the parameter's meaning and allowed values.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('server health and data source availability'), and clearly states return contents (server version, source statuses, tool count). This distinguishes it from sibling data-access tools, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 'Tips for LLMs' section explicitly says 'Call this first to check which sources are available', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not exclude any alternatives, but for a status-check tool the context is sufficient.

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