Health check: auth, scopes, config, rate limits, API boundary

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 tool is known to be safe. The description adds context about what is shown (token state, identity, scopes, config with secrets redacted, rate-limit snapshot, API boundary), which goes beyond annotations by explaining the output contents and the redaction of secrets. It does not contradict annotations; it enriches them. It could mention the optional network call and its cost, but that is covered in the parameter schema.

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, information-dense sentence that lists all the diagnostic outputs without fluff, followed by a clear directive. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses punctuation to separate items. Every word earns its place, and it is not overly long or verbose.

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 output schema, the description explicitly enumerates the six categories of information it returns (token state, identity, scopes, config, rate-limit snapshot, API boundary). The optional network call and its cost are documented in the schema. The description is complete for the tool's purpose and leaves no major gaps about what the tool will do or provide.

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 only parameter 'verify_network' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) including its behavior (calls users/me) and cost. The main description does not discuss the parameter, which is acceptable because the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 title 'Health check: auth, scopes, config, rate limits, API boundary' and description clearly state the tool's purpose: to display diagnostic information about OAuth state, identity, scopes, config, rate limits, and API boundary. It uses specific verbs (shows, run when something fails) and is distinct from sibling tools which are action-oriented (publish, dm, delete_post) or financial (spend, approvals), making it unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Run when something fails,' providing a clear trigger for use. It does not mention exclusions or specific alternatives, but given that no sibling tool performs health checks, this is sufficient. A stronger guideline would mention use cases like preflight checks or debugging before contacting support, but the basic directive is present.

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