health_check

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a read operation ('calls list_schools'), acts as a smoke test, and describes the error type and resolution. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an example call. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds troubleshooting context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool, the description is complete. It explains purpose, failure behavior, and provides an example. Since the output schema exists (context signal), the agent can understand the return format without further explanation.

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 no parameters, and the input schema confirms this (0 properties). The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist. Baseline 4 is appropriate as no additional parameter semantics are 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Verify credentials work' and specifies that it does so by calling 'list_schools (the cheapest read)'. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve data.

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 troubleshooting steps for a common error (ProcareAuthError) and configuration tips. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context makes it clear this is a first-step smoke test. Additional guidance on when to use vs other tools would elevate it to a 5.

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