preflight_check_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it discloses the check's scope (auth and config for two backends), implying a non-mutating diagnostic. It does not say whether a failed check throws an error or returns a status object, nor whether it incurs cost or requires credentials to already be present.

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 filler: verb, resources, and timing all in one clause. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with zero parameters the schema burden is nil. The description covers what is checked and when; only the failure-handling behavior and the identity of 'both backends' remain unstated.

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 of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly does not pad with parameter talk.

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 (check) and the resources inspected (auth + config) plus the temporal context (before submitting a generation). It is distinguishable from validate_params_tool and get_balance_tool, though the phrase 'both backends' is never explained, leaving a small ambiguity about scope.

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 clearly names the trigger condition — run this before submitting a generation — which gives an agent a concrete moment to invoke it. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., validate_params_tool) or stating what to do if the check fails, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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