openfic_health

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

The description clearly states the tool's sole behavior: checking availability. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so adequately for a simple read-only check. No hidden side effects or additional behaviors are implied.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the verb and subject.

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 health check with an output schema, the description is fully complete. It states exactly what the tool does, and the output schema handles return details. No further context is required.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; the schema already exhaustively covers the empty parameter set.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource ('local OpenFic API availability'). It is distinct from sibling tools, which all focus on data retrieval rather than system health.

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 purpose statement makes the usage context clear: use this tool when you need to verify API availability. No exclusions are needed because there are no alternative tools for this specific health check.

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