health_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what is assessed (config, Redis, Postgres, registry), going beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention response format or auth, but for a read-only diagnostic this is sufficient.

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?

The entire description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds concrete information about what the health check reports.

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 read-only health check, the description covers the important operational aspects: the subsystems checked and the diagnostic scope. It doesn't specify the response schema, but no output schema exists and the listed components give an agent enough context to invoke and interpret basic results.

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 schema is fully described, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the rubric, zero params warrants a baseline 4.

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 ('Reports') with a clear resource ('server health') and enumerates the exact subsystems checked: config validity, Redis cache connectivity, Postgres configuration status, and the capability registry. This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on company/valuation data.

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 makes the operational use obvious: call this when server health status is needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the siblings serve a health-check purpose, so the context is clear enough without them.

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