Untappd healthcheck

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those hints: it performs a lightweight authenticated request to the recent feed, reports success/failure, and returns server version plus a hashed tool manifest. This fully discloses what the agent should expect.

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 focused sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and supporting output details in the second sentence. Every clause adds value: connectivity, credential login, request behavior, response contents, and read-only safety.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what will be reported: success, server version, tool count, stable hash, and tool names. For a no-input healthcheck tool, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 and its schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 for zero-param tools applies here; the description appropriately omits parameter details because none exist.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Verify Untappd connectivity', 'credentials are configured and can log in', and 'confirm which build is live'. It is clearly distinguishable from all sibling tools, which focus on beer, venue, user, or social operations rather than system health.

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 makes the usage context evident: use this tool when you need to verify connectivity, credential validity, and the live build's tool set. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the healthcheck role is unique among siblings, so the absence of alternative routing is not a significant gap.

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