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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces 'Read-only' plus adds genuinely new behavior: it runs EVERY server-side check and returns issues as structured data, and it mirrors what the web UI shows. It does not discuss rate limits or output shape, but the output schema covers the return side.

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?

Front-loaded with the diagnostic question, then a single tightly packed sentence enumerating the checks, then a scope note. Every clause conveys concrete information an agent can act on, with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description fully covers the diagnostic behavior and the single parameter's context. Slightly more explicit sibling differentiation would make it airtight, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (companyId) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the nested UUID wrapper is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which is the expected baseline 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 cap table health) and defines it precisely as a validity check answering 'is anything wrong with this cap table?'. The check-by-check enumeration makes it clearly distinct from sibling readers like cap_table_get_cap_table_overview or cap_table_get_cap_table_summary, which fetch data rather than diagnose problems.

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 framing question establishes the context in which an agent should reach for this tool, and the enumerated checks imply when it is useful. It does not, however, explicitly name or exclude the sibling alternatives (overview/summary) or state prerequisites, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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