check_ppf_annuaire_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and the endpoint (/healthcheck), and clarifies that the tool is non-destructive (checking availability). This is transparent enough for a simple health check.

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 short sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (covering return format), the description is complete. It tells the agent when to use the tool (before directory-management sessions) and what it does (check availability).

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?

There are no parameters (0), so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter information, but none is needed. The schema coverage is 100% trivially.

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 specifies the verb 'Check the availability' and the resource 'PPF Annuaire service (GET /healthcheck)'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings, which are CRUD operations, by positioning this as a health check for the directory service.

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 states to use it 'before a directory-management session to ensure the service is reachable', providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the sibling list includes a similar 'healthcheck_flow' tool, so some differentiation would be beneficial.

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