health

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior—reporting readiness status and index statistics—but does not describe side effects, return format, status codes, or failure behavior. For a simple health tool this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary function is front-loaded, and the use case ('readiness probes') is stated in a second short sentence. Every word 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?

Given the zero-parameter schema and simple tool purpose, the description is nearly complete: an agent can invoke the tool without further input details. The lack of any return-format or response semantics is a minor gap, but not critical for a health/readiness probe.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not.

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 clear action ('Report') and resource ('readiness status and index statistics'), which directly corresponds to the tool name 'health'. It is not a tautology and is distinct from sibling documentation/search tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

Explicitly notes 'Useful for readiness probes', giving a concrete use case. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, so the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to use this tool.

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