feegow_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavior. It only states the tool performs a health check without detailing authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This lack of disclosure is a significant gap for a non-trivial tool.

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 a single sentence plus endpoint reference, which is compact and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is slightly underspecified, preventing a perfect score.

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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is minimally complete. It does not explain the return value (e.g., HTTP status, response payload), which is needed for an agent to interpret results. An average score reflects this gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single `query` parameter, which is an optional object for additional query parameters. The description adds no context about this parameter; it merely restates the endpoint. Thus, no value is added beyond the schema.

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 the Feegow API status (health check) via HTTP GET /status. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from all other feegow_ tools which deal with entities like professionals, patients, etc.

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 usage for verifying API availability. There are no sibling health check tools, so no need for exclusions. The endpoint is provided, offering clear context. Could be improved by stating when to use it (e.g., before other operations), but it's adequate.

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