fin_ping

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is already covered; the description adds that it fires one real search request and honestly discloses a limitation (it may not catch API key typos). That side-effect and limitation detail is genuine value beyond the annotations, though the result format is not described.

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?

Front-loaded with a domain tag and the core action, then the checklist and usage triggers. Dense but every clause (what is checked, the typo caveat, when to use) carries information; only minor trimming is possible.

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, no-output-schema diagnostic, the description covers scope, checks performed, a known limitation, and usage timing. It could say a bit more about what the response reports (pass/fail per check), but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 and the schema is empty, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing about argument semantics needs explaining.

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 — diagnosing the fin-law-mcp server connection/configuration — and enumerates exactly what is checked (server liveness, API key presence, live 법제처 response via a light search). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling lookup tools (fin_law_search, fin_article, etc.).

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?

Explicitly names the two triggering situations: post-install verification and root-causing lookup failures. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, but the diagnostic vs. search split with siblings is implied clearly enough.

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