get_health_check

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

The annotations already convey read-only safety, so the description's extra context—what the health check covers and that it reflects the current live state—adds real value beyond the structured fields. It clearly describes the diagnostic nature without contradicting readOnlyHint. It stops short of explaining failure modes or output shape, but the essentials are covered.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage guidance following. Every clause adds distinct value: what the tool checks, when to call it, and what mistake it prevents. No filler.

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 health check, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the nature of the check, the exact information it reveals, and the circumstances in which it should be used. There is no output schema, but the listed health attributes give enough clarity about what to expect.

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, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately explains what the tool returns information about, so there is no missing parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether this connector is actually safe and working right now.' It enumerates concrete aspects (gateway reachability, open company, TALLY_URL, read-only mode, disabled tools), immediately distinguishing it from all sibling tools, which mostly retrieve accounting data or perform mutations.

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 explicitly tells an agent when to invoke this tool: 'Use this before trusting a session, or when something feels off.' It also warns against the alternative of inferring connector state from a single tool call's success/failure, which is actionable guidance for choosing this over other tools.

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