Get Health

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as that it retrieves backend service status and returns a dictionary. No contradictions or additional safety disclosures are present.

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 short and front-loaded, but the first sentence 'Get system health status.' largely repeats the tool title and the second sentence repeats the same idea ('Retrieves the health status'). Some redundancy means not every sentence fully earns its place.

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-parameter, read-only health-check tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, why it might be used, and what it returns. It could mention availability or error behavior, but the output schema supplies return details and the annotations cover safety, so no critical information is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema describes no inputs, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed, but it does mention the return shape, which is useful context.

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 names a specific resource ('health status of the Ghostfolio backend service') and a concrete purpose ('verify if the server is up and running correctly'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which all operate on accounts, orders, portfolio data, 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 provides clear context for when to call this tool: to verify the server is running. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but no sibling tool appears to offer a comparable health-check function, so the guidance is adequate.

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