health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly guarantees no external requests, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not describe other behaviors like error handling or output format, but the existence of an output schema mitigates the need for format explanation.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose ('Report server and provider configuration') and appends the key constraint. Every word adds value.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and the description clearly states what it does and its non-external-request behavior, nothing essential is missing. An agent can confidently invoke it without further clarification.

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 schema coverage is complete (100%) by default. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, which is appropriate. The baseline of 4 is justified given there is nothing to document.

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 verb ('Report') and a specific resource ('server and provider configuration'), and adds a distinguishing constraint ('without making external requests'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling search tools, which are all about academic data retrieval.

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 provides a clear context for use: it reports configuration without external requests, implying it is appropriate when a lightweight, side-effect-free status check is needed. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the sibling set is uniformly search-oriented, making the context obvious.

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