Doctor (health check)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the return shape (markdown report with pass/warn/fail and remediation hints) and conditional behavior (cross-pillar enrichment floor only when LOG10X_CUSTOMER_METRICS_URL is set). It stops short of describing what happens for informational vs failing probes or any partial-failure behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and each clause earns its place via concrete probe names. The probe enumeration is dense and slightly list-heavy, but no sentence is redundant.

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 diagnostic tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it probes, when to call it, the result format, and conditional behavior tied to an env var. Nothing required to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single `environment` parameter (omit for all environments, pass a nickname for one) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Run a startup health check on the Log10x MCP installation") and enumerates the exact probes it performs, so the scope is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like log10x_env_validate or log10x_dependency_check, which is the only gap keeping it below 5.

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 clear when-to-use conditions: "once at the start of a session" and after any unexpected tool error to isolate configuration problems. It does not name when NOT to use it or point at specific alternative diagnostic tools, so it falls short of the 5 criteria.

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