health_ingestion

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true annotations, the description reveals key live behaviors: the result is uncached, the exact staleness thresholds for each component, the overall status values, and the HTTP 503/200 response semantics. That is strong behavioral transparency.

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?

Though the description is dense, every clause earns its place: thresholds, status logic, HTTP behavior, and authentication requirements are all covered without fluff. The leading 'Ingestion-death detector' immediately orientates the agent.

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, no-output-schema health utility, the description provides all the context an agent needs to invoke it and interpret the result: what is measured, when it is considered stale, what overall statuses occur, and what HTTP status is returned. Nothing crucial is missing.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool is appropriate here, and the description correctly focuses on behavior instead of parameters.

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 names a precise resource ('Form 4 freshness, parse-queue health, price-feed freshness') and an actionable verb ('detector'/'Returns live ingestion health'). It clearly differentiates this tool from the broader sibling set focused on filings, insiders, or usage by centering on ingestion pipeline health.

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?

It gives explicit context on when to use the tool: it can be pointed at directly by an external uptime monitor, and it requires no API key or plan. It does not enumerate alternatives or say 'use X instead of Y', but the use case is clear enough.

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