health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the exact endpoint and scope used ('/v2/user/info/ (user.info.basic)'), the rationale for avoiding creator_info, and the behavioral checks performed. This is substantial context well beyond a mere purpose statement.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise technical justification. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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, no-output-schema health check, the description fully explains what the tool checks, why it exists, and the specific infrastructure choice. The context about upload-only setups is especially valuable for an agent deciding when this is the right call.

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, so the empty schema is fully covered. The description correctly does not invent parameter details. Per rubric, 0 params earns a baseline 4; no additional semantic explanation is needed.

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 what the tool does: 'Credentials refresh, account reachable, and which posting mode is active.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting its backing endpoint with creator_info, making its scope obvious.

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?

It provides explicit when-not guidance by explaining that creator_info is a Direct Post endpoint gated on video.publish and would fail on upload-only setups. This tells the agent to prefer health_check over creator_info for health monitoring in such configurations.

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