health_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context by listing the exact diagnostic fields returned and confirming no required arguments. It does not mention that the auth probe may make a network call or how failures are surfaced, but openWorldHint plus the enumerated fields largely fill that gap.

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, each earning its place: the first enumerates the diagnostic output, the second routes the agent's decision. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return contents via its field enumeration, which is adequate. The only minor gap is the unmentioned response_format option, which would have completed the picture.

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 is one optional parameter (response_format) with an enum and default, and schema coverage is 0% — the description never mentions it. The parameter is self-documenting via its enum+default, so an agent can still use it, but the description adds nothing here and does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ("Diagnose") and resource ("SciX MCP server setup"), then enumerates exactly what the report contains (server name/version, base URL, token presence, auth probe, registered tool names). This is unmistakable against the sibling set, all of which are data-access tools like search, get_paper, and export.

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 frames the use case: "Use this to distinguish setup problems (missing/invalid token, unreachable API) from ordinary API errors," which is a clear trigger condition. It does not name exclusion alternatives, but none of the siblings overlap in purpose, so the guidance is sufficient in practice.

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