Health check

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that the tool makes exactly two polite requests and asserts parsing invariants. It also hints at operational behavior via the 'canary' metaphor. This is useful context that helps an agent predict the tool's side effects and intent.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core behavioral concept is front-loaded ('Live canary'), followed by invocation guidance. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

With zero parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains what the tool does and when to run it. Minor ambiguity remains around what the health-check result looks like on failure, but the output schema presumably covers that.

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 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add to parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist and no semantic clarification is 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 indicates this is a live health-check/canary tool that sends one search and one detail request to assert parsing invariants. The 'live canary' phrasing is slightly jargon-heavy, but combined with the title it conveys the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling server_status, though the focus on Chrono24 parsing distinguishes it implicitly.

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 provides explicit usage context: run after suspected Chrono24 markup changes or on a schedule. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare it with alternatives, but for a health-check tool the guidance is sufficiently clear.

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