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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the per-account sweep behavior and the failure-triage use case, which is useful context. It does not describe what a failing account produces (though an output schema exists), so a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences: the first states what it does, the second states when to use it. Zero filler and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose plus the triggering scenario. A minor gap is that it doesn't indicate whether results are reported per account or as a single pass/fail, but this is largely covered by the output schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is only one optional parameter, so the schema already documents 'account' and its 'Default: all.' behavior. The phrase 'each connected marketplace account' reinforces the all-accounts default but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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: 'Test that each connected marketplace account answers.' An agent can distinguish this diagnostic probe from sibling listing tools like list_accounts. It stops short of naming an adjacent sibling or contrasting scopes, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use it when a call fails with an authentication or network error.' This is clear context for invocation. It does not name an alternative diagnostic (e.g., catalog_health_audit) or state when not to use it, so it is a solid 4 rather than a full 5.

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