Tenant health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation uses GET and requires no key, which are real behavioral facts, but it omits return semantics, rate limits, and any indication of what the health statuses mean.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It packs in the HTTP method, both endpoint paths, the tenant scope, and the auth note.

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?

The definition gives enough information to invoke the zero-parameter tool, and no output schema exists to explain return values. Still, with no annotations and no return detail, it leaves the agent without context about what the healthcheck or system-status responses contain.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty input schema.

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 action (GET) and names the exact endpoints, /healthcheck and /system-status, scoped to the configured tenant. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not differentiate from any related sibling because no health-check sibling exists.

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?

Usage is implied by the health-check and system-status endpoints, so an agent can infer this is for diagnostics. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use condition, and no named alternative.

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