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. The description adds real behavioral value: the 0-100 score scale, the 24-hour measurement window, and the specific metrics bundled into the response, which matters because no output schema exists to otherwise convey them.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, scope, and returned contents are packed in without repetition.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete because it enumerates the return payload. It falls short only on how the score is derived and whether results are cached or time-sensitive beyond the 24-hour error window.

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 parameter is already documented as 'Project ID (uses default if not specified)'. The description adds only slight meaning by clarifying that omitting the ID aggregates across the whole workspace, which sharpens the schema's vague 'default' wording but does not add format or syntax detail.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Returns') plus a concrete resource ('0 to 100 health score') and scope ('a project or the whole workspace'), and enumerates the payload (errors in last 24h, unresolved count, error rate, issues, recommendations). It is clearly an aggregate overview tool rather than any of the sibling error-lookup/mutation tools, though it never names a sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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 implied — an agent can infer this is the dashboard-style overview call — but the description never states when to prefer it over runheed_get_recent, runheed_get_trends, or runheed_search_errors, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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