Get instance status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it is an unauthenticated reachability/database check against the configured instance, which is helpful for selecting it as a first diagnostic step. No contradiction observed.

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, front-loaded with the tool's job and followed by the key usage/auth fact. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 0-parameter status check with an output schema and robust readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what is checked, auth expectations, and when to use it. Nothing significant 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that no API key or arguments are required, which removes any temptation to supply credentials or filters. There is nothing else to document.

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 states a specific verb ('checks') and a clear resource: the configured Healthchecks instance's reachability and database responsiveness. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting no API key is required, so an agent can recognize this as the connectivity/status probe rather than a data or mutation 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?

It explicitly gives the usage context: 'try first when something is not working' and notes no API key is needed. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or exclusion cases, but the guidance is clear enough for a 0-parameter status tool.

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