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

The annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that it renders an interactive view for the user rather than returning data for reasoning, and that it only applies in clients that display apps. It does not describe fallback behavior in non-display clients, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the alternative tool routing. Every sentence earns its 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 render tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the view's contents, the snapshot scoping behavior, and the client restriction. Safety and idempotence are covered by annotations, leaving no material gaps for correct invocation.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the snapshot can be the latest or a chosen one, but adds little syntax or meaning beyond the structured input schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: it shows an interactive Site Health view with scores, coverage, and top issues. It also scopes the operation to the latest or a chosen snapshot and distinguishes itself from read_site_health, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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 explicitly names the alternative read_site_health and the condition for choosing it: when the agent wants to reason over the data itself. It also clarifies that this tool is for clients that display apps, giving clear context for when to use it.

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