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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful detail about the response contents but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, scope limits, or response timing; it is adequate without being 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 two concise sentences, front-loading the resource and its output contents while adding practical usage phrases at the end. There is no fluff 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 parameterless, read-only tool, the description adequately covers the main result categories and use-case phrasing. Since there is no output schema, the enumerated metrics and risks help compensate, though a brief statement about the response structure or that it reflects current health could add further completeness.

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 the schema coverage is 100%, leaving nothing for the description to document about inputs. The description instead clarifies what the output contains, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool and earns the baseline 4.

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 names the resource (Amazon Account Health) and specifies what it returns: AHR score/status, ODR/LSR/OTDR/VTR/IPI metrics, policy violations, and top risks. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_* tools, so it falls short of a 5 on differentiation, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides trigger phrases to use the tool: "account health", "suspension risk", "my ODR". This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related queries.

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