echo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the operation is protocol-dependent, issuing a C-ECHO in DIMSE but only a minimal QIDO-RS request in DICOMweb, which tells the agent the probe is lightweight and that behavior varies by node type.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the protocol-specific mechanism in a parenthetical. Zero filler, and the scoping detail is optional to reading rather than buried in prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the one required parameter is fully documented. What remains unstated is how a failed echo surfaces (exception vs. result payload), a minor but real gap for a connectivity probe.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'node' parameter is documented as 'Name of a configured DICOM node (see list_nodes)', which even points at the sibling that enumerates valid values. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Check connectivity to a node') and disambiguates the underlying operation per protocol (C-ECHO for DIMSE, minimal QIDO-RS for DICOMweb). It is clearly distinct from data-moving siblings like retrieve, move, store, and from list_nodes, though it does not name those alternatives.

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 word 'Check' implies this is a pre-flight/verification step rather than a data operation, but the description never says when to prefer it over alternatives such as list_nodes, nor does it state any failure-handling expectation. Usage is inferable rather than specified.

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