get_source_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does confirm this is a read-only summary by describing the information returned rather than any mutation. It gives no behavioral context such as freshness semantics, upstream dependency on the referenced health endpoint, or failure modes if that endpoint is unreachable.

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 that enumerates the key returned fields with no filler. Every clause earns its place by telling the agent what it will get.

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 zero-parameter read tool with a full output schema covering return values, the description supplies enough context to call it correctly. The only gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance relative to get_current_index and get_recent_alerts.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The schema and description are consistent on this point.

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 ('Summarize') and resource ('ICHI's source health') and enumerates the returned dimensions: overall status, confidence, feed counts, and contributing sources. This is clearly distinct from get_current_index and get_recent_alerts by content, though the description never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the enumerated outputs (health diagnostics versus index value or alerts), but there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over its siblings or any preconditions. An agent must infer the routing from the resource name alone.

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