songcheck_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates the tool is a safe, read-only health check with no destructive behavior. The behavior is obvious and fully disclosed, though it could mention that it returns a status indicator.

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 of 10 words, extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word is essential; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 health check with no parameters or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could be slightly improved by specifying the response format (e.g., boolean or status), but the current text is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose.

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, giving 100% schema coverage. Per the guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline score of 4. The description adds no extra parameter details, which is acceptable since no parameters exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource ('SongCheck detection service') and outcome ('is online'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (detect_ai_media, detect_ai_music, scan_catalog) which focus on detection/scanning rather than service status.

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 for verifying service availability, which is typical for a health check. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. For a simple health check, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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