thumbtack_healthcheck

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing exactly what is probed (server version, HTML page probe, GraphQL probe) and enumerating the possible `kind` outcomes (edge_blocked, http, transport, timeout, rate_limited, shape_changed). This adds real interpretive context beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the reporting detail. The `kind` enumeration is dense but earns its place by telling the agent how to read results; minor trimming could tighten it further.

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 simple, zero-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it validates, what it returns per-probe, and the status vocabulary. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note it is the recommended first call when the surface seems broken.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this is a 4; the description does not need to document inputs and correctly does not attempt to.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check that Thumbtack's anonymous surface is reachable and still has the response shape this server expects.' This clearly separates it from the data-fetching siblings (get_pro, search_pros, graphql), which an agent can tell apart without opening any schema.

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 a diagnostic/healthcheck role but never states when to reach for this versus the sibling fetch tools or what condition (e.g., suspected failures) should trigger it. Usage is left to inference rather than made explicit.

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