health_check

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the endpoint is undocumented and returns basic account info, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention any side effects. For a health check, the assumed safe behavior is implied but not confirmed.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose ('Check Apollo API health and verify your API key is working.') and adds essential context (FREE, input/output, undocumented). No wasted words.

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 health check tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its output, and an important caveat (undocumented endpoint). It is complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to add param info. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional clarification is required.

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 tool's purpose: checking Apollo API health and verifying API key. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Apollo API health'), and distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on specific CRUD operations.

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 indicates when to use this tool (to check health and verify key) and notes it is free and returns account info, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, for a simple health check, this is adequate guidance.

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