schoolpass_healthcheck

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds value by explaining the two-part behavior (unauth probe and credential login), which is not directly implied by the annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful context about the checks performed.

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 purpose. It efficiently conveys the two checks and the rationale without unnecessary fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, why it's useful, and the distinction it provides. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema provides no parameter documentation. Per rubric, a tool with 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning since there are none, and it doesn't attempt to invent any.

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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('SchoolPass connectivity and authentication'). It distinguishes two distinct aspects: an unauthenticated version probe for reachability and a credentials login check. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like schoolpass_whoami or schoolpass_list_students, which focus on specific data 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 implies when to use the tool: when needing to diagnose whether network issues versus credential problems are at play. It explicitly states the diagnostic value ('so a network problem is distinguishable from a bad password or school code'). However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, though the context is clear enough for an agent to infer its diagnostic role.

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