refinery_health

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns status, cached property count, rate limit info, and explicitly says no x402 payment is required. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise: three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then return details and cost note. No unnecessary wording.

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 simple read-only health endpoint with one optional parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the endpoint does, what it returns, and clarifies that payment is not needed.

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 description does not explain the response_format parameter, but the schema itself provides a description, default, and enum values. With one well-documented user-facing parameter, the description does not significantly add parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource ('RE Data Refinery API health') and states what it returns. It is distinctive and actionable, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling refinery_cache_stats, which may overlap on cache 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 use for checking API health and cache status, and usefully notes that the endpoint is free and does not require payment. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus siblings.

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