health

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: health does not evaluate state and makes no network request unless live=true is explicit. This is non-obvious, safety-relevant behavior that the annotations alone would not convey.

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 two tightly scoped sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the use case, then the exclusion, and ends with the key behavioral qualifier. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers all essential ground: what it does, when to use it, when not to use it, and the parameter's behavioral impact. No critical decision or invocation detail is missing.

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 carries the burden of explaining the live parameter. It does this effectively by stating that live=true triggers an explicit network request, while default behavior is local only. This adds meaning beyond the raw boolean schema.

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 states a specific purpose: retrieve local Arbitype configuration or perform an explicitly requested live provider check. It also distinguishes itself from evaluation-like sibling tools by asserting it does not evaluate state, so an agent can tell it apart from evaluate, classify, score, and verify.

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 explicit USE WHEN and DO NOT USE WHEN guidance, including a clear exclusion for business decisions and a precise condition for when a network request happens (live=true must be explicit). This fully routes the agent to the correct tool or away from it.

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