health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of safety disclosure. 'Return server health/status metadata' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, and listing the specific metadata fields provides a transparent expectation of the response. It does not describe potential caveats (e.g., network latency) but is sufficiently transparent for a health check.

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, concise sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose and output without extraneous words. It is properly front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and immediately specifies the resource.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description is complete for its simplicity. It fully explains what the tool returns, and there is no missing context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed, which matches the baseline for parameter-free tools.

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 the verb 'Return' with a specific resource 'server health/status metadata' and explicitly lists the contents (name, version, tools, capabilities). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all financial calculations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 via its role as a health check, and the tool is unique among siblings, so no alternatives are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., for monitoring connectivity) or any exclusions, but the context is clear from the name and description.

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