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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the freshness threshold ('stale if > 36h'), the scope (all stores or a single store), and the per-provider breakdown. It doesn't state whether this is read-only (obvious from 'Report') or discuss caching/rate limits. Without annotations, a small gap remains, but the domain-specific threshold detail is above average.

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?

Three tight sentences: scope, payload contents, and use cases. Front-loaded with the core action, zero restatement of the tool name, no filler. The parenthetical threshold and example are both earning their place.

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 read-only reporting tool with no output schema and one pagination parameter, the description covers scope, per-item fields, thresholds, and intended diagnostic uses. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to expect back, without needing return-value documentation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that the tool 'works for a single store too,' implying the store-scoping parameter isn't listed in the schema and the tool uses server-side context instead. That reconciles the single _offset parameter with the multi-store reporting description, adding value beyond the schema text.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Report the health of every connected data source for each of your stores'), and it enumerates exactly what is returned per provider/instance: last sync timestamp, record count, freshness flag, and nullability rates. This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_data_sources (which likely just lists sources) and get_anomalies, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: 'Use this to diagnose why is metric X showing 0?' and 'to confirm data is current before reporting numbers.' Those are concrete when-to-use triggers tied to a real diagnostic workflow, which is stronger than most siblings that only name a resource.

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