openalex_system_check

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses the tool's behavior: it returns health status, API reachability, cache status, and version info. It is non-destructive and read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 sentences, front-loading the purpose and listing return values efficiently. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter health check tool, the description covers key return values. It could hint at intended frequency (e.g., 'call before other operations') but is otherwise sufficient.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates no input is required, and the schema coverage is 100%.

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 checks system status and API connectivity, using specific terms like health status, API reachability, cache status, and version info. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on works and fulltext 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 implicitly suggests using this tool to verify system health or API connectivity before other operations, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar checks.

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