Verify the Hemnet GraphQL endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, indicating safe, idempotent behavior. Description adds concrete behavioral details: it performs a round-trip query and reports specific outputs (reachability, elapsed time, hint). This provides useful context beyond the structured fields.

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 a single 20-word sentence that immediately states the action and outputs. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no superfluous information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the three reported items. It is complete for a simple health check tool. However, it could briefly clarify what 'hint' means (e.g., error details), but this is a minor gap.

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?

No parameters in the input schema, so the description has no need to elaborate on parameter semantics. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description is sufficient.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs a health check on the Hemnet GraphQL endpoint, with a specific verb ('round-trips') and resource ('hemnet.se GraphQL'). It reports three outputs (reachability, elapsed time, hint). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools which serve functional purposes like searching or getting listings.

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?

Description implies usage: use to verify endpoint availability before other queries. However, no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools are all different, so selection is clear by purpose, but the description could be improved by stating 'Use this to check if the Hemnet API is reachable before making other calls.'

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