freemodel_key_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool checks but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, whether it has side effects, what the output format looks like, or any error behavior. The verb 'Check' implies non-destructive, but that is not explicit.

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 one informative sentence followed by a clear directive. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema 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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and usage. It mentions the three key outputs (subscription status, platform health, recommended model), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the result. However, lacking an output schema, it could have explicitly described the return value structure, but that's a minor gap given the 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 the description does not need to explain parameter usage. The schema is empty, and the description adds no parameter-related ambiguity. Baseline is 4 for 0-param tools.

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 checks API key health, listing specific aspects (subscription status, platform health, recommended model). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like freemodel_status or freemodel_recommend by focusing on key health and giving a directive to use it first.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use FIRST before task routing,' providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5 which requires explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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