Get System Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the useful 'Public — no auth' trait beyond annotations, but it does not disclose what the response contains (e.g., uptime, version, component status), which would be valuable given no output 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no filler. It leads with the action and resource, followed by the access qualifier, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 simple, parameterless health-check tool with safety annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it checks, that it is public, and that no auth is needed. The only gap is a bit more detail about what 'basic system status' means, but this is minor for a health endpoint.

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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is a 4.

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 a clear resource ('FutPicks API health and basic system status'). It is immediately apparent what the tool does and it reads distinctly from its siblings, especially with the 'Public — no auth' qualifier.

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 gives a clear usage context ('Public — no auth'), implying it is safe for unauthenticated health checks. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar siblings like flab_ops_status, so an agent must infer when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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