get_data_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what is measured (accessibility, response time, cache status), which is more than a tautology, but it says nothing about whether the check is read-only/side-effect free, auth or rate-limit implications of pinging many providers, or how failures are surfaced.

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 sentences, no filler, with the action and reported dimensions front-loaded before the diagnostic use case. The long parenthetical source list is informative rather than wasteful, though it is the one place the sentence carries extra weight.

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 zero-required-param diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description states what is measured and why to call it, which is close to sufficient. It could go further on the shape of results (per-source status vs. aggregate) but the essential calling context is present.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'only' parameter already documents its filtering purpose and gives a format example in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (raporlar) plus the exact resource and the dimensions it reports: live accessibility, response time, and cache status of all data sources. It enumerates the concrete sources covered (Yahoo Finance, TCMB, CoinGecko, etc.), which clearly separates it from the sibling tools that fetch market data rather than diagnose source uptime.

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 second sentence gives explicit intent: 'Hangi kaynağın çalışıp çalışmadığını teşhis etmek için kullanılır' (used to diagnose which source is working). This is clear when-to-use context, but it names no alternatives and offers no exclusions or prerequisites, so it stops short of the top tier.

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