Check seller-channel health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add context beyond those. It adds that the tool reports configuration/connector checks and inspects network_checked, but provides little detail on what those checks entail or how results are shaped.

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 compact sentence with no redundant phrasing, making it easy to parse. It could be slightly more structured or complete, but it is appropriately brief for a tool without parameters.

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 presence of an output schema, annotations, and no parameters, the description is minimally acceptable. However, it does not clarify what distinguishes this tool from 'channel_capabilities' or what 'network_checked' semantically means, leaving some context gaps for an agent deciding when to invoke it.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and identifies a resource ('configuration and connector-supported checks'), with an additional inspectable field 'network_checked.' It is clear enough about health reporting but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'channel_capabilities' tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'channel_capabilities,' 'profile_list,' or 'product_get.' No exclusions, prerequisites, or decision rules are provided, so the agent must infer usage context.

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