health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a verification/reporting operation (non-mutating), and partially explains behavior: checks endpoint reachability and 'expected top-level shape' for recipes, and 'runs through the ladder' for URLs. However, 'the ladder' is undefined jargon, and the odd parenthetical about 'known-good test slug' is confusing and doesn't clarify what a failed check actually does.

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 front-loads the purpose well, but the parenthetical about 'known-good test slug isn't available generically' is confusing, self-referential, and nearly unparseable. This sentence should be rewritten or removed since it undermines clarity without adding actionable value. The description is somewhat rambling and could be tightened.

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 an output schema present, so return-value details are covered structurally. The tool has only 1 parameter which is reasonably explained, but the parenthetical confusion and the undefined 'ladder' concept leave notable gaps. Given the absent annotations and moderate complexity of dual-target behavior, the description should be more explicit about what constitutes a healthy versus broken 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?

There is only 1 parameter (target) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain that target accepts either a recipe id or a plain URL and differentiates the behavior for each. However, it doesn't describe the expected format of the target (how to distinguish a recipe id from a URL, any prefix/ID format), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 purpose: verify a recipe or raw URL is still working, and distinguishes it from the silent-failure alternative of discovering breakage only after a real search. It names the two input forms (recipe id or plain URL) and what each checks. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like fetch or use_recipe to differentiate, and the purpose is somewhat muddled by the parenthetical about 'known-good test slug isn't available generically'.

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 conveys when to use it (proactively verify before discovering breakage), and distinguishes recipe-id checks from URL checks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools (fetch, use_recipe, extract) to clarify boundaries. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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