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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's closing 'Read-only' merely restates them rather than adding information. The genuinely useful behavioral details are missing: the time window the snapshot covers, data freshness, and whether metrics are computed per-org or per-team when teamId is supplied. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this adds modest value only.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and a tight metric list, followed by usage guidance — a good ordering. The trailing 'Read-only' is redundant against the annotations and is the one sentence that does not earn 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the metrics a caller receives, which is exactly the burden it must carry. What's absent is the measurement period and freshness of those metrics — material for a health-snapshot tool — otherwise it is complete for a single optional-parameter read.

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 teamId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the omit-for-org-wide behavior. The description never mentions team scoping at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (organization health snapshot) and then enumerates exactly which metrics are returned: DORA tier, cycle time percentile, coverage, active teams, incident rate. That enumeration lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_dora_summary or get_coverage_summary, which cover only one slice of the same data.

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?

Gives clear situational guidance: 'use this as the first tool to get a high-level picture of engineering health before drilling into specific metrics', which sets up an explicit entry-point-then-drill-down workflow. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tools to drill into (get_dora_summary, get_coverage_summary, list_recent_incidents) or stating exclusions, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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