Check health

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by itemizing what is actually inspected (connection health, quota, capabilities, cache size, coverage, hit ratio), which tells the agent this is a broad diagnostic probe rather than a narrow status read.

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 with no filler, and the enumeration of checked dimensions is front-loaded before the purpose statement. Slightly dense but every clause earns its place.

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 single-optional-param, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what areas are reported on. It would be marginally stronger if it said whether the check performs live network calls or reads cached state.

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 is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema stating 'Account name (checks all accounts if omitted)'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

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 gives a specific verb ('check') and enumerates the concrete resources inspected: connection health, quota, capabilities, cache size, coverage and hit ratio. That scope clearly separates it from siblings like get_email_status or get_watcher_status, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Useful for diagnosing issues' implies a diagnostic context but does not state when to prefer this tool over get_email_status, get_watcher_status or check_notification_setup, nor any exclusion conditions. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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