system_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds value on top: it names the four diagnostic areas returned and flags that results come back "when authenticated". The auth caveat is the key extra signal, though it is ambiguous whether auth is a hard prerequisite or merely affects response depth.

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 short sentences ordered purpose → return contents → use case, with no filler. The only mild redundancy is "system health status" overlapping with the later "diagnostics" phrasing.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing database, queue, storage, and service diagnostics. It does not say what a degraded or unauthenticated response looks like, which is the one remaining gap for a health-check tool.

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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly makes no parameter claims. No enums, defaults, or scoping inputs exist to document.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Check the Storno API system health status") and enumerates the diagnostic domains returned. It is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from adjacent introspection siblings such as system_version, anaf_status, or agent_status.

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?

"Useful for troubleshooting connectivity or service issues" gives an explicit use context, which is enough to route an agent here during incident triage. It stops short of exclusions or naming an alternative for narrower checks (e.g. version lookup or ANAF status).

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