health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks liveness, Geo Hub reachability, readiness, and mode, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not detail the output format or how the results are structured, relying on the output schema to convey that. Since the output schema exists, this is adequate, but the description could add more about what 'mode' means.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Report MCP liveness...'). Every word is informative, and there is no waste. It is appropriately structured for a zero-parameter tool.

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 simple health-check tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the key aspects: liveness, reachability, readiness, and mode. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state that the tool performs no side effects or mutations, but given the nature of 'health' and the lack of parameters, an agent can reasonably infer it is non-destructive.

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 coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what aspects are checked (liveness, reachability, readiness, mode), which is helpful even though there are no parameters to document. Baseline 4 is justified because no parameter information is needed.

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 reports liveness, reachability, readiness, and mode, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on layers, sources, features, and imports. It conveys the resource being probed and the nature of the check, though it could be more explicit about the name 'health' being a status endpoint.

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 this is for checking the service status and connectivity, which is distinct from the sibling tools that perform data operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer this is for health checks.

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