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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false), and the description layers on genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: the rollup spans only the 5 most recent completed audits and truncates at 500 issues. It also documents the empty-state semantics ('zero when none', 'hasAudits is false when none completed'), which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret a sparse result.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the rollup framing is front-loaded before the field list. The opening sentence is dense with stacked parentheticals, which slightly slows parsing, but no clause is expendable.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so completely: field names, severity buckets, uncomputable-value behavior, truncation cap, audit window, and the latestAuditAt timestamp. An agent can call it and correctly interpret every likely response, including the empty case.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already tells the agent it is a UUID 'Domain ID from list-domains'. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond the possessive 'domain's', so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a domain's site health rollup') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (totalIssues, severityCounts, latestAuditAt, hasAudits), which pins down scope precisely. It also names the sibling tools that cover the per-page and raw variants, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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 routes away from itself: list-site-audits and get-audit-issues 'give per-page detail' and the pingaura://domains/{domainId}/health resource holds 'raw audit data'. That is a clear this-vs-alternative split with the differentiator stated, not merely implied.

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