schoolpass_healthcheck

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

The description discloses that the tool performs two separate probes: an unauthenticated version probe for reachability and a credential login check. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) which only indicate safety. It adds valuable context about the tool's behavior, explaining how it differentiates network versus auth failures. No contradiction with 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 concise—two sentences—with the primary purpose stated upfront. It efficiently conveys the two checks and their diagnostic value without any wasted words. The structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect (a report of connectivity and auth status). It explains the distinction between network and credential issues, which is sufficient for a healthcheck tool. No missing critical information.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no need to explain parameter meanings. The provided description covers the tool's operation without referencing parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. It adds nothing about parameters because there are none, which is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking SchoolPass connectivity and authentication. It specifies the resource (regional API host) and the two distinct checks (unauthenticated version probe and credential login), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform data operations. The verb 'check' and the named resources make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly indicates that this tool is for diagnosing connectivity and authentication issues, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It explains that it distinguishes network problems from bad credentials, which hints at its diagnostic use case, but lacks direct guidance like 'use when troubleshooting connection errors'.

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