Health

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

The annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'availability check' behavior but does not disclose details such as what response the endpoint returns or how 'available' is determined. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter health check with extensive annotations, the description is largely complete for invocation purposes. The main gap is the absence of any statement about what a successful or failed availability check looks like in the response, especially since there is no output schema. This is minor given the tool's simplicity but prevents a perfect score.

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 schema coverage is 100%. There is no parameter behavior to document beyond the schema's empty object, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 states a specific action ('Check whether... is available') and a specific resource ('Better Luma/WAP backend'). It clearly identifies this as a health-check tool and naturally distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which are availability checks.

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?

Usage context is only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for verifying backend availability before or during other operations. No explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over siblings, but the sibling tools are functionally distinct, so the omission is not misleading.

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