health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status, capacity, memory usage, and version information, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics beyond what's implied by '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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return details and usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place with zero waste, making it highly efficient.

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 (0 parameters, has output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The output schema will handle return value details, so the description doesn't need to explain those. A minor gap is lack of explicit mention about what constitutes 'unhealthy' status.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 3. The description appropriately adds no parameter information since none exist, which is correct and earns a slightly higher score for not adding unnecessary details.

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 specific verb ('Check') and resource ('DataBeak server health and availability') with additional scope ('with memory monitoring'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_server_info' by focusing on health/readiness rather than general server information.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use ('Use before large operations to verify system readiness and resource availability'), which gives clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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