Check API Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value beyond that by stating the rate limit (8 requests per minute per instance) and the specific data returned (health, rate limit status, cache statistics). This is useful behavioral context that annotations do not provide. No contradictions with 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: first a one-line purpose, then a 'Use when' bulleted list, then a rate limit note. Every sentence earns its place – there is no fluff. Information is front-loaded, so an agent quickly understands what the tool does and when to use it.

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 health-check tool with no parameters and an output schema (which likely defines the return structure), the description covers the purpose, use cases, and rate limit. The siblings are all sufficiently different that there is no ambiguity about selection. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and when to call this tool.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related meaning because none is needed. The description's mention of what is returned (health, rate limit, cache stats) provides context that would indirectly help understand any potential future parameters, but for now it's appropriately handled.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get server health, rate limit status, and cache statistics.' This distinguishes it from all siblings, which deal with statistics, subject areas, metadata, and queries – none of which match a health check. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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?

Explicit 'Use when:' list with three concrete triggers: queries failing/slow, needing to check remaining API quota, and debugging connection issues. This gives an agent clear conditions for invocation. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the context is specific enough that misuse is unlikely, and the distinct scope of siblings implicitly excludes alternatives.

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