Verify credentials and upstream reachability

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description explains how the credential is resolved, that exactly one authenticated request is made, which diagnostic results are reported, and that the credential itself is never returned. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 three sentences with no filler: the first states the core action, the second enumerates the output categories, and the third gives the usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place despite minor repetition of the domain name.

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 zero-parameter health check with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers how it behaves, what it reports, why it is read-only, and when to call it, leaving no essential ambiguity for an agent selecting or invoking it.

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 document. The description still clarifies that credential resolution uses the same mechanism as real tools, which is sufficient given the empty 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 clearly states a specific diagnostic purpose: resolve the credential and make one authenticated request to api.signupgenius.com to verify it. It distinguishes itself from the CRUD/listing sibling tools by describing itself as the health check to run when a real tool fails.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: call this when a real tool fails and you need to know which hop broke. It does not spell out when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear and no sibling tool performs this health-check role.

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