health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context that the tool verifies connectivity and returns server status/version, but it does not disclose potential error behavior, timeouts, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a gap, though acceptable for a simple health check.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. The structured 'Returns:' line adds useful information without redundancy. 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 the tool's simple nature, no parameters, and an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention failure behavior or connectivity error handling, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that detail.

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 the input schema is empty with 100% coverage (vacuously). The description correctly avoids inventing parameters. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Overseerr server status and connectivity'), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which all deal with users, media, requests, or issues, making this the only health-check 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 states the tool verifies MCP server connectivity to Overseerr, providing a clear use case. It does not name alternative tools, but no sibling serves the same purpose, so implicit guidance is adequate.

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