check-health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (uptime, model info, pricing) which is helpful context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that communicates the complete purpose and return information without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the primary function ('check if the AgentOracle API is online') followed by the specific data returned. 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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a health check tool. It explains what information is returned. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more detail about the response format, error handling, or when this tool should be preferred over similar status-checking operations. The description is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, which is efficient and correct. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.

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 specific verbs ('check if... is online', 'get service status') and resources ('AgentOracle API'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'deep-research' and 'research' by focusing on health/status rather than research operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-manifest' which might also provide system information.

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 usage context - when you need to verify API availability and obtain service metrics. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get-manifest', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is reasonably clear but lacks explicit comparison with sibling tools.

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