get_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's return contents (status, job statuses, connectivity) and explicitly states that no payment or API key is required, which covers authentication behavior. It does not explicitly mention read-only, but that is implied by 'check' and the nature of a health endpoint; overall, it provides sufficient behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists concrete return details, and adds the auth note at the end. Every word adds value; there is no padding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and that it requires no auth. No further context is needed for an agent to call 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 schema description coverage is trivially 100%. There are no parameters for the description to clarify, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, which is appropriate.

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 tool checks API health and service status, listing specific return items (overall status, active job statuses, x402 connectivity). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on data retrieval (intelligence, tokens, etc.), so purpose is 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 gives context that this is for checking API health and status, and notes it is free with no auth required, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but given its unique purpose among siblings, the context is clear enough without naming them.

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