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 covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the specific health dimensions returned, including cool-downs and invariant status, which goes beyond what the annotations provide.

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 definition is a single dense sentence that packs many metrics into a colon-separated list. It avoids waste, but the initial question format is slightly awkward and the list could be more skimmable; nonetheless, it is appropriately sized for a health-check tool.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it does so by enumerating the health indicators. It is nearly complete for invocation, though it does not describe the response structure or format beyond naming the metrics.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 a system-health diagnostic and specifies the metrics it covers, including job success/due times, cool-downs, invariant checks, pending judgments, stale apps, and public_unchecked counts. It is distinguishable from all sibling tools, which focus on app search, comparison, and ranking, though it phrases the purpose as a question rather than a direct verb-resource statement.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this to inspect data-maintenance health. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about whether it is intended for monitoring, debugging, or pre-operation checks.

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