xpayr_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait an agent needs: it is a public endpoint requiring no API key. It also names what the response reports (health, version, timestamp). It omits failure semantics (what a degraded response looks like) and rate-limit behavior, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 the auth condition front-loaded in parentheses and zero filler. Every clause adds information: what it checks, what it returns, and that no credentials are needed.

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, side-effect-free health check with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, and the auth requirement, which is essentially everything needed to invoke it. Minor omission is how to interpret a non-healthy result.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The text correctly implies a parameterless call rather than suggesting any hidden input.

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?

Specific verb ('Check') plus resource ('XPayr Gateway API v1 operational health, version, and server timestamp') makes the tool's function unmistakable and clearly distinct from the payment/session/agent siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast with, which is unnecessary here since no other tool plausibly overlaps.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'public endpoint, no API key required' note signals this can be called without credentials, useful for pre-flight or connectivity checks. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives.

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