health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool pings each endpoint and returns a status report with UP/DOWN states, and notes it returns JSON. It lacks explicit mention of non-destructive nature but implies it via 'check' and 'verify'.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, return format. Could be marginally more concise but no wasted words.

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 simple health check tool with no parameters and an output schema (implied), the description is complete. It states what endpoints are checked, how result is returned (JSON summary), and usage context. No gaps.

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% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter info, but baseline is 4 for 0 parameters.

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 checks health/availability of all 11 API Hub endpoints. It uses specific verb 'check' and resource 'health and availability', distinguishing it from sibling tools which are unrelated (e.g., age_appropriate, web_scrape).

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 'Use this to verify that the MCP server and upstream API hub are reachable', providing clear context for when to use. However, it doesn't mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, though for a health check this is sufficient.

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