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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; returns no credentials'. It goes beyond annotations by disclosing that output is honest server-side facts, includes last check-in time, whether the app ever checked in, and credential presence, plus state-specific repair text. No contradictions with annotations.

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 description is longer than average but every sentence carries operational value: what state is checked, when to use it, what the response contains, and safety assurances. The 'honest server-side facts' phrasing adds decision guidance. Slightly dense, but well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the agent will receive. It does so thoroughly: per-entry state values, repair text, last check-in time, ever-checked-in flag, and credential presence. It also covers the single optional parameter's effect. For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents repair_steps. The description adds context by mentioning 'step-by-step repair text on request' and explaining the behavior difference, but this essentially paraphrases the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the connection health of every app registered under this connection's project key'. It names concrete output states (active, reinstall detected, paused, removed, never activated, disabled) and gives clear signals distinguishing it from dashboard-level tools. It clearly defines what it is and is not.

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 description gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use this FIRST when an app is not showing up in the dashboard, stopped uploading, or shows as disabled'. This tells the agent when to select the tool over others. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the trigger conditions are specific and actionable.

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