service_health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait, and states the token requirement. However, it does not mention what happens on invalid tokens, the response format, or any side effects beyond validation. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff; the read-only nature is front-loaded. It is concise and scannable, though it could potentially add a bit more context without losing brevity.

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 single-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description is almost sufficient but leaves gaps: it doesn't state what a successful validation returns (e.g., a status code or boolean) or how to interpret failure. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the return contract; this omission makes it incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It only says 'Requires a Fastly token', which merely restates the parameter name and required flag. It does not elaborate on what constitutes a user-scoped token, how to obtain it, or any format expectations beyond the schema's minLength constraint.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'validate' against a specific resource ('user-scoped Fastly token') and even gives the exact endpoint (GET /tokens/self). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fastly_get_config or fastly_purge_service, which perform different 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 provides a prerequisite (requires a Fastly token) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage for token validation but lacks direct comparison to siblings like fastly_update_user_token or service_connection_info.

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