Check RAVN venue health

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already indicate this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds purpose but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations (e.g., no mention of caching, latency, or failure semantics). It does not contradict the annotations, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 a clear benefit clause. It wastes no words and immediately conveys the tool's purpose and usage context. The structure is perfectly scannable for an agent.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's role in the overall RAVN workflow (pre-swap health check), enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it. Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), nothing essential is omitted.

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 input schema has no properties, and the description adds no parameter details (correctly, since there are none). With no parameters, the schema coverage is effectively complete, and the description does not need to elaborate. No information is missing, so a neutral baseline is suitable.

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 performs a liveness check across all venues RAVN routes through, using a specific verb ('check') and a specific resource ('venue health'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling swap/quote/execute/status tools by focusing on proactive route degradation detection.

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 says to call before a swap to know whether a route is degraded ahead of time, giving both a clear trigger (before swap) and a concrete benefit. This implicitly tells the agent when not to use it (e.g., during execution) and separates it from the execution-oriented siblings.

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