opentable_healthcheck

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

Annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: what the diagnostics reveal (bridge role, port, version, extension link states, round-trip time), the plain-English hint taxonomy, and the explicit statement that booking is never probed. It doesn't describe timeouts or error-return behavior in detail, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then progressively discloses return contents, hints, and constraints. It's a long sentence chain but each clause adds information (what is returned, what the hint distinguishes, what is explicitly not tested). Slight redundancy in enumerating link states and hint categories.

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 0-parameter, no-output-schema diagnostic tool, the description is complete: it explains the mechanism, the returned diagnostics, the hint taxonomy, the read-only/no-auth constraint, and the explicit non-goals (no booking probing). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; however the description compensates by describing exactly what the tool returns (diagnostic fields and hint categories), giving the agent full understanding of the call's shape without a 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 states a specific action (round-trips /robots.txt through ContextMint Bridge for diagnostics) and clearly distinguishes itself from every sibling tool, which all concern reservations, restaurants, menus, or favorites. An agent can immediately see this is a connectivity/diagnostic tool, not a data-fetch tool.

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 explains the scope clearly: 'Tests bridge transport only' and explicitly rules out booking ('booking is never probed'), plus notes that search/menus/availability are only reported from observed real reads. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use for actual data, but the exclusions give strong routing signal.

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