health_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the exact endpoint called (GET /v1/company) and the success outcome (returns a small company summary), which goes beyond annotation-only disclosure.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and a usage directive. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second explains the implementation and outcome. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter health check with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, when to use it, the underlying call, and the success result. There are no missing critical aspects like return format or failure modes, especially given the simplicity and existing schema.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description needs no parameter explanations. It implicitly confirms no inputs are required by describing the call as a direct GET without inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Verify GorillaDesk credentials.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling business-query tools by focusing on operational health, not domain data. The mention of the API endpoint (GET /v1/company) further clarifies its role.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Run this first if other tools fail.' This is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude scenarios. The context of being a first-line diagnostic is well conveyed.

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