health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It explains what the tool checks and returns but does not disclose safety profile (e.g., read-only) or other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 two efficient sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states action, second lists return items. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no-parameter health check with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention if authentication is required, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent.

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 are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and output, complementing the empty 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 states the tool checks server health and enrichment provider configuration, and lists specific return values (server status, providers, cache stats, connectivity info). It is distinctly different from sibling tools which focus on enrichment operations.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives is given, the purpose is self-evident: it is a diagnostic tool, contrasting with the enrichment-focused siblings. The context makes usage clear enough.

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