Check API Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context about what the health check returns (database status, timestamps for ingestion sources). No contradictions.

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 sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second elaborates on return content. Highly efficient.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. It is complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke this tool.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description need not add parameter information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description is consistent and sufficient.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'EIP API health and data freshness', and specifies the return value (database status, timestamps for 10 ingestion sources). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are all data retrieval or search tools.

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 implicitly indicates it's a health check tool, not for data retrieval. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives, the sibling tool names (e.g., search_vulnerabilities, get_vulnerability) make the distinction clear. A slight gap in explicit guidance prevents a 5.

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