Check the setup

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it performs multiple verification checks and returns a JSON envelope including next_tool and next_args, which signals orchestration behavior beyond a simple read. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences cover purpose, when to use, and return shape with zero filler. The diagnostic scope is front-loaded first, followed by usage guidance and output format.

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 no-parameter diagnostic tool with a read-only annotation and an output schema, the description is complete: it states what is verified, when to call it, and the return envelope including next_tool/next_args. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the input surface. The description does not need to explain parameters; it adds no parameter details, but none are 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 uses a specific verb ('Verifies') and names the exact resources checked: API key, account balance, Vast API reachability, and the auto-teardown reaper. It clearly identifies this as a diagnostic health-check tool, distinct from siblings like get_balance or list_instances.

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?

'Call this first when anything misbehaves' gives an explicit, actionable trigger for use. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the instruction to call it first provides clear routing for troubleshooting situations.

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