search_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load; 'Read' does imply a non-destructive, side-effect-free operation. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described here. However, nothing is said about what 'health' means (rate limit, quota, auth state, reachability) or whether the call itself is rate-limited or cached.

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 no filler, which is appropriate for a zero-argument utility tool. Its only weakness is that brevity shades into vagueness ('HTTP authority' is never unpacked), rather than any wasted text.

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 tool with an output schema documenting the response shape, the description is close to sufficient — an agent knows how to call it and what to expect. What is missing is scope/interpretation: whether it reports health for one provider or all of them, and what the caller should do with 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 schema defines zero parameters, so there is nothing parameter-related for the description to compensate for; the documented baseline of 4 applies. The description does not wrongly suggest that any scope parameter exists.

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?

It states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('provider health'), which is enough to distinguish it from every sibling (search_web, recover_url, extract_content, etc. — none deal with health). The phrase 'from the HTTP authority' is opaque and leaves the source/scope of the health data ambiguous, which keeps it below 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to check whether the underlying provider is healthy, and no sibling overlaps with that role. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (auth, credentials), and no statement of whether it should be called before/after the search tools.

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