Check gateway health and recent attribution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly states the tool does NOT make a new inference call and must never silently spend provider budget. It could add more detail about failure modes or network behavior, but the key side-effect guarantee is clearly disclosed.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical side-effect warning is placed prominently. Every sentence 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description adequately explains the two parameters and the no-side-effect behavior. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing the sibling tool relationship, but for a simple health-check tool this is sufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by identifying base_url as the gateway address and mentioning local receipts, which maps to receipts_path. However, it does not explicitly explain the parameter names, defaults, or the nullability of receipts_path.

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 clearly states the tool checks gateway reachability via the /health endpoint and reports the most recent local receipt. It names a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_spend.

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 implies usage: use this when you need a health check and recent attribution evidence without making an inference call. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_spend or provide exclusion criteria.

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