gsc_health_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds context about being a diagnostic check that tests authentication and API reachability, which complements the annotations without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (diagnostic with one optional param), annotations cover safety, and output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for an AI agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool. Sibling tools further differentiate.

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?

Only one optional parameter (response_format) with enum values defined in schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning. However, it does not mention the parameter or explain its impact (e.g., markdown vs json output). The parameter is simple but the description should still clarify how it affects behavior.

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?

Description clearly states 'Diagnostic: confirm the OAuth token is valid and the Search Console API is reachable.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools that perform specific operations (e.g., gsc_inspect_url, gsc_query_search_analytics).

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?

Explicitly advises to 'Run this first when setting up the server or after errors to determine whether the issue is auth, network, or a specific site.' This provides clear context for when to use it. Could be improved by stating when not to use, but it's still strong.

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