Check seller-channel health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-mutating nature is clear. The description adds minimal context about reporting checks and inspecting a field, but does not elaborate on behavioral details like authentication or rate limits. Since annotations cover the main safety profile, the addition is acceptable 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 with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded, stating the action and resource immediately, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema to document return values. However, the description is vague about what 'configuration and connector-supported checks' entail and what 'network_checked' means. While the output schema helps, the description leaves enough ambiguity that the tool's exact behavior is not fully clear.

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 zero parameters, so the description need not explain any. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds nothing unnecessary about parameters, which is appropriate.

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 'Report' and identifies the resource as 'configuration and connector-supported checks' while mentioning 'network_checked'. This conveys the tool's basic purpose but leaves the meaning of 'network_checked' ambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like channel_capabilities by focusing on health checks, but not explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as channel_capabilities or product_get. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

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