groupon_healthcheck

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is disclosed. The description adds the version detail, but no other behavioral traits (e.g., response format, error conditions) are described. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not extensive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose. The second sentence adds valuable roadmap context without any wasted words.

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 simple health check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what it does, what it reports (running state and version), and provides context about the tool's phase, making it fully sufficient 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?

The input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not need to add parameter details; baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional info is necessary.

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 reports that the groupon-mcp server is running and its version. The verb 'Report' and specific resource 'groupon-mcp server' make the purpose unambiguous, and it is clearly distinct from the sibling deal-related tools.

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 second sentence 'Deal-read tools arrive in a later phase' provides context that this health check is the primary use for now, implicitly guiding the agent to use this tool for server status checks rather than expecting deal functionality. It lacks an explicit exclusion or alternative, but the implication is clear.

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