health_check

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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's marginal contribution is the disclosure that it touches no source or private data — a real guarantee an agent can rely on when deciding it is safe to probe. It does not add anything about latency, caching, or what 'configuration' surfaces, so it is useful but not rich.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the security scope riding immediately behind it. No filler, no restatement of the name beyond what is needed.

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?

With zero parameters, rich annotations and an output schema defining return values, the description only needed to establish purpose and safety, which it does. The one residual gap is that 'configuration' is left vague about which settings are reported, but the output schema covers that.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no schema gap to compensate for.

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?

A concrete verb-plus-object ('Report process readiness and configuration') tells the agent exactly what is returned, and the scope clause 'without accessing source or private data' separates it from the content-fetching siblings like get_source_page or search_source_pages. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usable context is only implied: an agent reads 'process readiness' as a pre-flight check before calling the Quran/tajwid content tools. There is no explicit when-to-use rule, no stated preconditions (e.g. call before other tools), and no mention of alternatives or when not to call it.

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