accesso_healthcheck

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds concrete behavioral context by naming exactly what is tested: network reachability to accesso and default ticket link configuration. 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?

One sentence communicates the complete purpose with no filler. The key facts are front-loaded: it checks reachability and default-link configuration.

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 one-parameter, read-only healthcheck with no required inputs, the description is adequate. It omits the exact return shape, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity and the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, and the url parameter is already described as the ticket link from the order-confirmation email, optional when ACCESSO_TICKET_URL is set. The description adds no parameter-level 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?

Uses the specific verb 'Check' plus two clear targets: connectivity to accesso and the presence of a default ticket link. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that get orders, tickets, wallet passes, or resolve links.

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 makes the diagnostic context clear: an agent should use this when verifying server-side reachability and default-link configuration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the healthcheck purpose is obvious enough that little is left to inference.

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