evite_healthcheck

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that the response includes the resolved auth mode, not just a bare up/down status, which is behavioral context an agent would not get from the annotation block alone.

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 no filler; both what is checked and what is returned are stated without redundancy.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the read-only profile, the description supplies the one thing missing from structured data: the shape of what comes back (status plus auth mode). It stops short of enumerating possible status values or formats, a minor gap for a diagnostic endpoint.

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, which sets the baseline at 4. There is nothing further for the description to clarify about arguments.

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 ('Report') and resource ('evite-mcp status and the resolved auth mode'), giving an agent an unambiguous sense of what the call returns. It is clearly a diagnostic among a sibling set composed entirely of event/guest/message operations, so no ambiguity with siblings exists.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the call to make when verifying connectivity or the active auth mode, but the description never says when to prefer it or what conditions warrant running it. No alternatives exist among the siblings, so no explicit exclusion is needed, keeping this at the minimum-viable level.

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