Check the site is reachable

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds value by specifying the exact verification (parseable RSC payload) and what it reports (configured site and school id). The 'Read-only' line is redundant with the annotation but not contradictory.

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 three short sentences with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence. There is no fluff or redundant detail beyond the necessary clarification of the RSC payload and the reported fields.

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 zero-parameter, read-only health check, the description covers the core function and the output (site and school id). It could explicitly mention failure behavior or return format, but given the tool's simplicity and good annotations, it is adequately complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explains what the tool does and what it reports, which compensates for the lack of parameters and adds functional context.

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 uses the specific verb 'Verify' and clearly identifies the resource ('athletics site') and the acceptance condition ('still serving a parseable RSC payload'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch specific data types like schedules or rosters.

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 purpose of checking reachability is clear and implies when to use it, but the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools or state when not to use it. For a simple health check, the context is still unambiguous.

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