Doctor (health check)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the specific external endpoint probed (prometheus.log10x.com) including auth, which checks are informational (Retriever endpoint, Datadog credentials) versus gating, and the pass/warn/fail output with remediation hints. It also discloses the LOG10X_CUSTOMER_METRICS_URL precondition for the enrichment-floor check, with no contradiction of the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage, then a probe list that is dense but each clause names a real check rather than padding. It is on the longer side and reads as a run-on enumeration, but nearly every phrase carries information.

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 read-only diagnostic with an output schema, the description is thorough: probes covered, output format, and usage timing. The one gap is routing against the several overlapping diagnostic siblings (env_validate, dependency_check, login_status), which an agent must resolve on its own.

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 is a single optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains the multi-env omit-vs-nickname behavior in full. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a startup health check on the Log10x MCP installation') and enumerates the exact probes performed, so the agent knows precisely what it does. However, it never differentiates from overlapping siblings that also perform validation, such as log10x_env_validate or log10x_dependency_check, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

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?

Gives two concrete trigger conditions: 'once at the start of a session to verify the install' and 'any time a tool returns an unexpected error to isolate whether the problem is configuration or transient.' That is clear context for when to reach for it, but no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., a narrower env-only check) is offered.

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