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

Annotations already establish read-only safety, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the `dashboard` block is gated on admin scope, poolCost only appears when CI_POOL_COST_PER_MINUTE is set (otherwise 'cost not configured'), and every number carries a `source` attribution. That scope-gating and conditional-field behavior cannot be derived from the 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?

A single run-on paragraph dense with backticked field names, nested parentheticals, and internal spec references (CAP-0.4, CAP-1.4, ESTATE_PLAN §5) that mean nothing to an external agent. The reader gets no grouping or emphasis, so the most important facts (read-only, admin-gated dashboard) are buried mid-sentence.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly enough to decide whether to call it. It is missing only practicalities like response size or performance cost, which matter for a tool that aggregates 24h/7d rollups.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no space on parameter syntax and instead documents the returned shape.

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 opening sentence names the concrete resource ('CI health') and the endpoints it mirrors, then enumerates exactly what it returns (queue wait percentiles, outcome rates, capacity, firing measures). It is unambiguous what the tool is, though it never names the sibling it is not (e.g. merjax_ci_queue_status), so an agent must infer differentiation from the content list alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the breadth of the payload signals 'use this for an aggregate CI health overview.' There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like merjax_ci_queue_status or merjax_ci_executor, which overlap on queue and runner speed data.

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