server_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the breadth of what is checked (credentials, DB, queues, jobs, robots.txt watches, quota), which signals this is a composite probe that may touch multiple subsystems. It says nothing about latency, whether checks are live or cached, or how failures are surfaced, leaving behavioral gaps.

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?

One dense line, zero filler, scope front-loaded with 'Server health' before the enumeration. The trade-off is that it is a bare fragment rather than a complete sentence, so the agent must infer the verb ('report/check') itself.

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 parameterless diagnostic with no output schema, the description tells the agent what areas are inspected but not what a result looks like (per-component pass/fail, degraded states, quota numbers) or how to react to a failure. That leaves a meaningful gap, though the component list is enough to justify calling it during troubleshooting.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema provides; baseline 4 applies. The enumerated list is a report of coverage, not parameter meaning, but no compensation is needed.

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 phrase 'Server health' plus an enumerated list of subsystems (credentials, local database, inspection queues, background jobs, robots.txt watches, quota use) makes the resource and scope unambiguous — an agent knows this is an aggregate diagnostic status read. It is a noun fragment with no verb and draws no boundary against siblings such as check_alerts or inspection_job, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all — no statement like 'call first when tools fail' or 'use instead of check_alerts for backend health'. The list of subsystems only implies diagnostic usage; it never routes the agent relative to the many nearby inspection and robots.txt siblings.

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