check_upstream

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral note that the response contains no secrets, which is useful extra context for an agent evaluating the tool's outputs. No contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded sentence that includes the core purpose and important response detail without any wasted words. Every element 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 parameterless health-check tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool does and provides the key response attribute (no secrets), leaving no critical gaps.

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 fully covers this (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since there is nothing to configure. This aligns with the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and identifies the exact resource ('Crawl4AI upstream GET /health'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tool parse_page, which is about parsing rather than health checking.

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 clearly implies the usage context: checking the upstream health endpoint. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tool is focused on parsing, creating a natural distinction.

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