health_check

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by listing what is checked and by specifying that each check returns OK/WARN/FAIL with a fix.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives a compact list of checks and the result format. Every clause contributes information without padding.

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?

With no input parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough context: what is checked and what the output statuses mean. It could say more about remediation or interpretation, but it is largely complete for a health check.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline for a no-parameter tool 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 names a specific diagnostic resource ('System health heartbeat') and enumerates the checks it performs, from ESPN freshness to notification failures. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like refresh_data or journal_append.

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 by the name and the phrase 'System health heartbeat', so an agent can infer it is for system diagnostics/monitoring. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternative tools.

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