cryptoguard_health

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that no payment is required (addressing cost implications) and clarifies the purpose as a verification tool. Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower, but the description enhances understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key usage notes, all in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, and the second provides practical guidance and exclusions, with no wasted words.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and high schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It effectively communicates purpose and usage, though it could briefly note the idempotent nature or lack of output schema for full completeness.

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 description does not mention the 'verbose' parameter or its semantics. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 specific action ('Check'), resource ('CryptoGuard API health, version, and service status'), and scope ('verify the service is running'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform different operations like checking tokens or scanning. It goes beyond a tautology by detailing what aspects of the API are checked.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to verify the service is running') and provides a key exclusion ('No payment required'), which helps differentiate it from potential paid alternatives or other tools that might require authentication. It offers clear guidance on its intended context.

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