Health across all three memory tiers

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope fact (three tiers) and says nothing about cost, freshness, or whether the check probes live backends versus returning cached health.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler – appropriately sized for a trivial no-argument status call, though it is essentially a noun phrase rather than a sentence with an action verb.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail belongs there, and with no parameters the only burden is stating what the call reports – which it does (health across three memory tiers). It stops just short of explaining what 'health' means or why an agent should check it.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no argument semantics for the description to clarify or omit.

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?

Names a specific resource (health/status) and its scope (all three memory tiers), which no sibling covers – goldfish_search, goldfish_remember, etc. are all distinct operations. It is distinguishable from siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as goldfish_context or goldfish_recall, nor any stated trigger (e.g., diagnostics before recovery). The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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