stellar_network_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the call mutates anything, what constitutes 'healthy', what happens on failure/timeout, or whether auth is required. 'Check' implies a read, but nothing confirms it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 tool with six optional parameters, nested header objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It explains neither what the health check evaluates nor what its result conveys.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, which makes baseline 3 appropriate, though it could have clarified how rpcUrl/network/configDir interact with the 'configured RPC'.

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 ... health of the RPC'), which is enough to identify the operation. However, it says 'the configured RPC' while the schema exposes rpcUrl/network/configDir overrides, so it is ambiguous which endpoint is actually checked, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like stellar_doctor or stellar_network_info.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as stellar_doctor or stellar_network_info. The agent is left to infer the context entirely.

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