health_check_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the four checks performed, but says nothing about runtime cost, whether results are persisted and retrievable via health_check_status, or what a failing check looks like.

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: the action first, the scope of checks second. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description's main burden is telling the agent what the check covers, which it does via the parenthetical list. It stops short of explaining how results are returned or whether the run updates the status surfaced by health_check_status, a minor but real gap for a diagnostic tool.

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 for the description to disambiguate; the schema is empty and fully covered. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Run') plus resource ('health check') with the concrete checks enumerated in parentheses (DB connection, PHP fatals, low disk space, bridge disabled), so an agent knows exactly what the operation does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling health_check_status, but the 'now' framing implies an on-demand execution.

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?

'Run the health check now' implies on-demand invocation versus polling a stored status, but the description never names health_check_status as the alternative or states when to prefer one over the other. Usage is inferable from the sibling list rather than stated.

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