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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that the probe is 'authoritative server-side' and returns logs, but does not explain logSeconds behavior, timeout/rate behavior, or what the health result contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the primary function first and the auxiliary log snapshot second. No filler, though it is a bit compact given the two undocumented parameters.

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, the description does carry the burden of conveying return content, and it does so at a high level (health status + log snippet). However, the unexplained logSeconds parameter and the absence of any indication of the health response shape leave clear gaps for a diagnostic tool.

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 0% for two parameters. The description never mentions flowId and only indirectly gestures at logSeconds via 'short snapshot of recent dev-server logs', without clarifying that it bounds the log window (1-20s). It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('server-side health probe of the flow's preview sandbox') plus a stated secondary output (recent dev-server logs). It is clearly a status/read tool, distinguishable in intent from siblings like flow_start_preview and flow_stop_preview, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 parenthetical 'useful to diagnose a red screen or crash' implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when/when-not framing and no comparison to alternatives such as flow_start_preview or flow_sync_preview. Usage is suggested rather than specified.

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