check_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return content for both modes (status, uptime windows, response time, consecutive failures, daily snapshots) and adds the notable caveat 'No money fields.' This provides solid behavioral transparency, though it does not mention error handling or side effects.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the purpose, clearly enumerate mode-specific outputs, and include a relevant caveat. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (two optional parameters, two modes, no output schema), the description comprehensively covers what is returned in each mode. It is self-contained for an agent to understand expected results and use the tool correctly.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description reinforces that 'slug' toggles modes and that 'uptime_period' applies to single-service daily snapshots, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool checks live health of x402 services, and distinguishes two modes: directory-wide snapshot without slug, and per-service report with slug. This specific verb+resource combination effectively differentiates from siblings like search_x402_services and get_service.

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?

The description implies when to use each mode (no slug for snapshot, with slug for detailed report) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. However, the context of health checking is clear enough that an agent can decide when to invoke this vs. other sibling tools.

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