java_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses the 10s per-host GET timeout, that it never raises, the exact mapping of overall values (error when the search index is unavailable, degraded on any check failure, ok otherwise), the env var that disables the politeness layer, and the deliberate decision that a read-only cache stays 'ok'. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent cannot get from a zero-parameter schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then logically grouped paragraphs for the cache edge case, the probe/return contract, and the politeness block. It is longer than most zero-param definitions, but nearly every sentence carries operational detail that has nowhere else to live given the absent output 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fully specifies the return shape (server, version, checks, overall) plus the top-level politeness counters and the environment flag. An agent has everything needed to call the tool and interpret the result.

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 there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no effort on parameter syntax and instead describes the return payload and semantics.

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+resource: 'Real health check: search index, local cache and upstream endpoints.' The word 'Real' hints at contrast with the sibling health_check, and the enumerated components make the scope concrete. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to or away from health_check, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given, despite a sibling named health_check that an agent must distinguish this from. The 'Real health check' phrasing and the 'never raises' note imply it is a safe diagnostic call, but the agent is left to infer the selection rule.

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