health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it performs a token refresh and a get round-trip, implying network activity and potential token state mutation. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, what side effects occur (e.g., does token refresh persist?), or what the return value represents. For a health check, this level of disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Verify auth chain') and then adds specificity. Perfectly sized for a zero-parameter diagnostic.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the actions taken. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean success, a structured health report), which an agent might need to interpret the result. Since there is no output schema, this omission is a small gap.

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 empty with 100% coverage by default. The description does not need to explain parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. No additional meaning is required.

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 states a specific verb ('verify') and a clear resource ('auth chain'), and clarifies the exact operations involved (token refresh + Customer Management GetUser round-trip). This sets it apart from all 45 sibling tools, which are focused on entity management, reporting, and ads – none of which are diagnostic.

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 phrase 'Verify auth chain' gives clear context for when to use it – after authentication setup or when debugging auth issues. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the tool's unique purpose among siblings (no other health check) eliminates ambiguity. Some exclusion guidance is absent but not critical given the uniqueness.

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