thumbtack_healthcheck

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the rest and does well: it discloses that the HTML page probe and GraphQL probe are reported separately and enumerates the possible `kind` outcomes (edge_blocked, rate_limited, shape_changed, etc.). It stops short of explaining what each failure mode means or how to react, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose, then the reporting detail. The enum list is long but each value is load-bearing for interpreting output. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does name the reported fields (server version, HTML probe, GraphQL probe, `kind`). It leaves the exact response envelope and the meaning of each `kind` unspecified, which is a modest gap for a low-complexity zero-param tool.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly makes no parameter claims.

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 (Check) and resource (Thumbtack's anonymous surface reachability + response shape), and further specifies what it reports. It is unmistakably a diagnostic tool and cannot be confused with the sibling search/resolve/pro/graphql tools.

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 diagnostic nature implies when it would be called (to verify connectivity/shape before or after other calls), but the description never explicitly states when to prefer it or that it is the right first step when other tools fail. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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