health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the 'Check' action is consistent with that safe read-only profile. The description adds value by expanding scope beyond the annotation title 'API health' to include the database, but it does not disclose response behavior or failure semantics; given the annotation coverage, this is adequate though not rich.

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?

A single five-word sentence with zero waste. The core action and target resource are front-loaded, and every word 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, annotation-backed health check, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the unspecified response shape, but with no output schema and low complexity, an 'ok/error' style result is reasonably predictable.

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 coverage is 100%, so per baseline no parameter explanation is required. There is nothing for the description to add about inputs.

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 ('Check') and resource ('API and database health'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. None of the 22 sibling tools perform health checks, so it is fully distinguished from alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit — the description clearly suggests it is used to verify system health, and no sibling tool competes for that role. However, it does not state when to call it (e.g., pre-flight checks, troubleshooting) or any conditions that would make it the right or wrong choice.

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