Gateway health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds complementary behavioral context: it is public (no auth) and covers three specific health indicators. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent that this is a safe, unauthenticated call.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Check') and packs all essential details (liveness, readiness, build version, public, no auth) with zero wasted words.

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, parameter-less health-check tool, the description is complete: it names what is checked and the authentication requirement. No output schema is provided, but the description implies the result includes these health metrics, which is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is no parameter information to add. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and no parameters are left undocumented.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and distinct resources ('gateway liveness, readiness, and build version'). It fully separates this tool from any sibling tools, none of which perform health checks.

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 implies a use case: checking gateway health without authentication. It adds the context 'public, no auth', which helps agents decide when to use it. There are no alternative health-check tools among siblings, so no explicit exclusion is needed.

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