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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful domain context about what a check consists of (each one has a current status and message) and that it reads application-internal signals, but says nothing about pagination, limits, or auth requirements beyond the docs URL.

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 tight sentences plus a docs link: purpose and examples first, differentiating constraint second, reference last. Every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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, the description needn't detail return shape, and the docs link covers deeper detail. It gives enough for an agent to select and call the tool, though it omits what happens when a monitor has no application health checks configured.

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 description coverage is 100%: monitor_id is documented as the monitor to query and only_with_issues as a filter for non-OK checks. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the application health checks a monitored site reports back to Oh Dear') and enumerates concrete examples (queue depth, disk space, database connectivity, Horizon). It explicitly distinguishes itself from network-level siblings: 'surfaces problems inside the application rather than on the network,' which separates it from get_certificate_health, get_uptime_statistics, etc.

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?

Provides clear context for when this is the right check ('problems inside the application rather than on the network'), which implicitly routes the agent away from network-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or stating exclusions/prerequisites, and there is no guidance on the only_with_issues flag as a scoping choice.

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