Provider health

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral scope beyond that by specifying that it checks every connected provider and includes latency and reachability, though it does not discuss failure modes, performance cost, or partial-outage semantics.

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 tightly written sentences: one defines the operation and its scope, the second supplies the diagnostic use case. Nothing is wasted and the purpose is front-loaded before the usage condition.

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?

Given the low complexity, rich annotations, full schema descriptions, and existing output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers what is checked and the situation that calls for it without needing to restate return values or optional locale details.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional locale parameter, including enum values and output-language behavior. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the full explanatory burden.

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 operation: a liveness check across every connected data provider, with latency and reachability called out as checked dimensions. It is distinguishable from the data-retrieval and export siblings in substance, but it does not explicitly name or contrast itself against any sibling tool, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives a concrete condition for use: when queries fail and the agent needs to tell upstream outages apart from bad parameters. This is clear and actionable, but it does not state when not to use the tool or name an alternative diagnostic path, so it falls short of the 5-level rubric.

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