get_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool requires no wallet/API key and that it reports the payment mode (live|mock), which is useful behavioral context. It does not describe response format or error behavior, but for a simple health check, this is acceptable.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Check Vindex API health and configured payment mode') followed by the caveat about being free and requiring no credentials. No wasted words.

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, the description covers the main purpose, the specific items checked (health and payment mode), and the authentication requirement. It omits response format details, but since there is no output schema, the description is largely complete for its simplicity.

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 parameter semantics are inherently N/A. Per the scoring rules, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters to explain.

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 'Check' as a specific verb, identifies the resource as 'Vindex API health', and adds 'configured payment mode (live|mock)', which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_pricing or decode_vin.

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?

It states 'Free, no wallet or API key required', clearly indicating when the tool can be used without prior setup. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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