wealthbox.health

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the endpoint and what it verifies, which is helpful, but it does not describe the return format, success/failure behavior, or side effects (expected to be none). This is adequate but 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?

The description is a single sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It conveys the essential 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient. It could add a note about expected results (e.g., success indicates valid token), but it is complete enough for a health check utility.

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, so the schema provides complete coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; no parameter descriptions are 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 it is a health check that verifies token and connectivity by hitting a specific endpoint (/v1/me). It is distinct from data operation siblings and unambiguously describes its purpose.

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 use as a diagnostic step to verify token and connectivity before other API calls, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like wealthbox.getMe or wealthbox.request. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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