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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the signal fields (type, severity, observed value vs rolling baseline, data source), the severity enum values, and the default latest-day behavior. It does not explicitly confirm read-only status, but the context and sibling get_* tools imply it, which is acceptable.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence establishes the purpose, the second details the output fields, and the third mentions filtering. Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the main output fields and default behavior. It covers the signal structure and severity levels but does not specify return format or pagination, though these are not critical for this simple read-only tool.

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%, with both parameters (date, min_severity) clearly described in the input schema. The description restates the default date and filtering capability but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource as anomaly/health signals from Orion, with a specific scope (per day, default latest). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_trends or get_metric_history by focusing on severity levels (info|notable|critical) and rolling baseline comparisons.

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 implies usage for retrieving anomaly/health signals, and mentions filtering by min_severity, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_trends or get_daily_brief. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are provided.

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