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

Goes well beyond the read-only annotations by disclosing the admin/curator-only restriction, the OAuth authorization requirement, the permission-error behavior for other callers, the row sorting logic, the derived status precedence order, null semantics for access/systemic/message, and the relationship to the UI and REST endpoint. This is rich context that annotations alone do not 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 content is relevant and front-loaded with the admin restriction and core purpose, but it is delivered as a dense run-on paragraph with semicolon-separated definitions. Some phrases repeat ('the repeated refusal', 'the same user-side refusal') and the long status derivation chain would be easier to parse with structure.

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 complex admin health tool with no output schema, the description explains the returned row fields, status vocabulary and precedence, message semantics, sorting, filtering, authentication requirements, and source endpoints. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the status parameter by explaining how each status is derived and that rows are sorted with actionable ones first, plus it notes filtering by status. The format parameter is left to the schema, which is reasonable but prevents a 5.

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 resource (health of every connector Autario offers) and scope (one row per gallery connector), so an agent can tell this is an admin-wide health summary rather than a single-connector status check. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings such as get_connector_status or list_connectors, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Provides concrete example questions ('which connectors are broken', 'is Instagram healthy', 'what should I fix first', 'which connectors wait on vendor review') that clearly map to this tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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