Er datakildene oppe akkurat nå?

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool makes real API calls, that it is deliberately cheap, that it touches one endpoint per source, and that it can take several seconds. This is meaningful context beyond a simple 'check health' statement.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence establishes the action and output, the second gives concrete use cases, and the third sets latency expectations. 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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential expectations: what it calls, what it reports, when to use it, and that it takes seconds. It stops short of describing the exact response format or listing which sources are checked, but it is sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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, which gives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and it correctly describes the tool as needing no user input to perform its per-source checks.

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 ('Kaller ett billig, ekte endepunkt per kilde') and a clear resource (each data source), then defines the output: which sources respond, how fast, and what error they give. It clearly differentiates from the sibling data-access tools by positioning itself as a diagnostic health check rather than a data-fetching tool.

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 names when to use this tool: when another tool behaves strangely or when checking whether a source changed its contract. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended diagnostic context is clear.

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