health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the stable return keys, possible status values, per-domain auth outcomes, gmail_detail semantics, how optional sites/geo data behave relative to status, and the lightweight backend calls (one login query and one users.getProfile per domain). It does not explicitly state permissions or no-side-effect guarantees, but the read-only 'Report' framing is strongly implied.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and states the core purpose immediately. The rest is detailed and justified by the absence of an output schema, though the long nested parentheticals make it denser than ideal.

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?

Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does the important work of explaining stable return keys, status semantics, optional datasets, and cost. It is complete enough for correct invocation, but it remains thin on when to select it over sibling status tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty input schema confirms there is nothing further to document, and the description appropriately focuses on return behavior instead of inventing parameter semantics.

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 verb and resource: 'Report service status, version, and per-domain auth/API reachability.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as workspace_status or daily_brief.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The 'Lightweight' note hints that it is cheap for diagnostics, but an agent still has to infer when health_check is preferable to workspace_status or other status-oriented siblings.

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