opencdr_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' merely restates structured data and earns no credit. The description adds nothing beyond that — no auth requirements, rate-limit behavior, or what the health result conveys.

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 terse sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero waste. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 no-argument read-only health probe with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The only minor gap is that it doesn't indicate what the response reports (e.g., status field or version), but no output schema exists and that is a small omission.

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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to document. No parameter information is needed or missing.

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 and resource ('Check OpenCDR API health'), which is clearly distinct from the data-retrieval siblings such as opencdr_rules_list or opencdr_signals_search. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, but the diagnostic purpose is unambiguous.

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 health-check framing implies usage (verify connectivity/liveness before or during other calls), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or reference to alternatives. An agent can infer intent but receives no routing guidance.

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