Check an On the Cheap site’s connectivity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context that no credentials are required and that it checks the public API, clarifying the nature of the network access. It doesn't contradict annotations and goes slightly beyond them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and includes only essential operational hints (site key reference, no credentials). Every sentence serves a purpose 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?

This is a simple single-parameter read-only tool with good annotations. The description covers purpose, prerequisites, and a pointer to the site list. While it doesn't specify the return format, the absence of an output schema and the straightforward 'connectivity check' nature make this acceptable for the complexity level.

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 schema description for 'site' is fully comprehensive (100% coverage), including valid values, aliases, and a reference to otc_list_sites. The description only repeats the need to pass the site key and reference the list, adding no meaningful new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('one On the Cheap site'), clearly stating the function is to check reachability and API responsiveness. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., otc_search_posts, otc_get_post) by focusing on connectivity rather than content retrieval.

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 clear context: it tells the user to pass the 'site' key for the city and references otc_list_sites for the full list. It also explains that no credentials are needed, implying this is a safe, standalone health check. It does not explicitly state exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough among siblings.

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