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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation. The description adds domain behavior beyond that: it reports outflow category resolution, where categorization lands, which counterparties explain the remainder, and whether payee names will render. These are meaningful traits an agent would not know from the annotations alone.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; each clause adds a distinct dimension of the health report. It is dense but not wasteful.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, the description leaves the time-window semantics of the months parameter unexplained and does not position the tool relative to nearby spend or categorization tools, leaving some completeness gaps.

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 only 50%, and the description provides no parameter semantics at all. The months parameter, which likely scopes the health window, is undescribed in both the schema and the description, so the agent cannot infer its meaning from the description.

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: 'Report whether a company's categorization is healthy enough.' The diagnostic framing distinguishes it from sibling spend tools like spend_get_spend_by_payee, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 opening clause implies a readiness/diagnostic use case ('healthy enough for its Money Graph to read truthfully'), which hints at when to call it. However, it names no explicit alternatives or exclusions versus tools such as get_spending_by_category or the transaction rule-gap tools.

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