health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is lightweight (one query per domain) and always returns the same keys, implying idempotency. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the verb 'report' strongly suggests no side effects.

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, no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then adds key details (return keys, performance). Every sentence earns its place.

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 and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, and that it is lightweight. No gaps remain for effective invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by detailing the output keys and performance characteristics, going beyond what the empty schema provides.

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 explicitly states the tool reports 'service status, version, and per-domain auth/API reachability', using a specific verb-report and resource-health check. It distinctly differs from sibling tools like daily_brief or login_audit, which address other aspects.

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 clearly implies use for checking system health, and the sibling context makes the purpose unambiguous. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, though none are obviously needed given its unique function.

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