Gateway health

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description's disclosure that MANDARE_GATEWAY_URL must be set in the server environment is genuinely useful setup context, and the hint at what /healthz reports (halted state, card rail, witness gating) adds substance. 'Read-only' merely restates the annotation, so it earns no credit there.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and endpoint, with the prerequisite stated before the read-only note. Slight density of undefined domain jargon is the only cost.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to enumerate the health signals returned and to flag the required environment variable. Missing only a note on when a caller should prefer this over the other mandare status/verify tools.

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 to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description appropriately does not invent 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('gateway door /healthz'), which is clearly distinct from sibling mutation tools like mandare_kill and the mandare_issue_* family. The parenthetical domain terms ('halted state, card rail, witness gating') are jargon that a reader may not fully parse, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to call this versus mandare_verify or mandare_budget_status, and no exclusions or preconditions beyond the environment variable. The health-check framing implies usage but nothing is spelled out.

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