檢查採購後端健康狀態

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 the endpoint and the checking behavior, but does not describe the return format, error handling, authentication needs, or whether any side effects occur. This is adequate for a simple health check but not rich.

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 description is concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose and the endpoint, followed by clear usage scenarios. No unnecessary information is included.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the tool is simple. The description covers the purpose and when to use it, but does not mention what the response or result looks like, which could be useful for a health check. Still, it is mostly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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, so there is no parameter information needed. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no parameter-specific detail because there are none to document.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking whether the procurement backend service is operating normally, with the specific implementation detail of calling the /api/health endpoint. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool search_purchase_orders, which is a different operation.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user wants to confirm the system is online, or before performing other operations to verify connectivity. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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