Verify credentials and upstream reachability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it never returns the credential itself, makes exactly one authenticated request, reports the credential source, round-trip time, and distinguishes failure categories. This goes beyond the safety hints already encoded in 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?

The description is tightly written in three sentences: mechanism, outputs, and usage trigger. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the most decision-relevant information appears early.

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 output schema present, the description compensates by enumerating exactly what the tool reports: credential source, acceptance by ourfamilywizard.com, round-trip time, and a plain-English failure hint. It also explains the diagnostic purpose and the safety guarantee about not returning the credential, making it complete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate on inputs.

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 names a specific diagnostic action: resolve credentials exactly as real tools do, make one authenticated request to ourfamilywizard.com, and report the outcome. It clearly distinguishes this health-check tool from the data-oriented sibling tools by focusing on broken-hop diagnosis rather than domain operations.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' It implies the alternative is failing sibling tools, but it does not explicitly name a sibling or list when-not-to-use scenarios. Still, the usage context is clear enough for an agent.

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