Kooperativa: health check

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It helpfully states that no authentication is required and characterizes the operation as a simple liveness probe, implying a lightweight, read-only connectivity check. It does not detail the exact response format, but this is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the key behavioral fact (no authentication) are front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately.

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 liveness probe with no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does, that it needs no auth, and when to invoke it. Nothing essential 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, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no misleading or unnecessary parameter-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 clearly identifies the tool as a 'Simple liveness probe for the Kooperativa API' with the specific purpose of verifying connectivity. It is easily distinguishable from the data-oriented sibling tools, which all perform operations like enrichment, search, or monitoring.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use to verify connectivity before running a batch job.' This provides clear contextual guidance, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives—not necessary here since no sibling tool serves the same purpose.

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