Статус подключения

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is read-only, requires no credentials, and enumerates what the response contains. It does not describe failure modes, but for a simple status probe this is adequate.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the core action ('checks backend availability') and then lists the returned data and key behavioral traits. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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, no-output-schema status tool, the description is complete: it states the purpose, the behavioral safety profile, the credentials requirement, and the returned fields. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately adds that credentials are not required, which is the only relevant input-related information.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it checks backend availability and returns tenant, reference version, and authorization state. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling reference/authentication tools, whose purposes are different.

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 clearly implies the tool is a lightweight connectivity/status check and explicitly notes it is read-only and requires no credentials, which signals when it is appropriate to call. It does not explicitly contrast with taxi_authenticate, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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