Check API health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (no API key required) and the read-only nature of checking reachability. However, it does not describe the response format, error behavior, or what constitutes 'reachable', leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no waste. The core action and key context (no API key) are front-loaded, making it instantly scannable.

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 health-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it does and when to use it. The only gap is the lack of detail on the return value, but this is minor for such a simple probe.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the calibration rule for zero-parameter tools, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter details because none exist.

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 a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'API', and it distinguishes itself from sibling data-providing tools by focusing on reachability. This is unambiguous and immediately differentiates it from tools like footballstack_matches or footballstack_standings.

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 it works without an API key, which implies it's for verifying server wiring and connectivity—a clear use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so distinct that the usage context is effectively conveyed.

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