service_health

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

The description states it reads a public GET endpoint and requires no auth, which is transparent about its read-only nature. It also mentions per-dependency check results. Without annotations, this covers key behavioral traits, though rate limits or error handling are not detailed.

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?

Three efficient sentences: the first defines purpose and exclusion, the second provides a usage alternative, and the third details behavior. No redundant words; key information is front-loaded.

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 simple no-parameter health check, the description is complete: it explains what it checks, how (public GET), and its relationship to siblings. Omitting the output format is acceptable given no output schema, but a brief note could enhance completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the tool checks (service health, not org), which is unnecessary for parameter semantics but does not detract. The schema coverage is 100% as no params exist.

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 liveness check for the 'Run402 SERVICE' and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'status' tool, which checks organization status. Specific verb ('Liveness check') and resource are defined, with no ambiguity.

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 explicitly tells when to use (for service health) and when not to (for organization status, directing to 'status'). It does not compare with other siblings like 'service_status', but the exclusion is clear and helpful.

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