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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by defining the concrete health criteria, including the specific 'over 3 days' threshold for stalled orders and the explicit inclusion of low-stock and draft items, which an agent could not infer otherwise. It still omits whether results are counts or item lists and whether there is pagination or a cap.

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?

One dense sentence with the checklist framing front-loaded and zero filler. It is long but every clause names a distinct issue type that earns its place; readability would improve with a light structure given the number of categories.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does by enumerating the issue categories and the staleness threshold. The main remaining gap is the output shape (counts vs items, severity ordering, truncation), which matters for a diagnostic tool an agent may need to act on.

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% and the single optional store parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'leave empty if you have only one store' case. The description mentions nothing about the store parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline of 3 for full 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 makes clear this is a diagnostic that returns a list of fixable issues, and enumerates the exact categories checked (missing images/descriptions/prices, out-of-stock, low-stock, drafts, stalled orders). It never uses an explicit verb like 'report' or 'list', and it doesn't distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling low_stock_report, which prevents 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?

There is no guidance on when to run this versus low_stock_report, find_products, find_orders, or multi_store_report, all of which surface partially overlapping data. No prerequisites, no frequency guidance, and no statement about when not to use it.

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