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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context: it is a read-only snapshot covering all watched agents with specific state values and time/cost fields. There is no contradiction with annotations. It does not mention ordering or response shape, but for a no-parameter, read-only status tool this is adequate.

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?

The description is one compact, front-loaded sentence followed by a colon-delimited list of returned content. It wastes no words while conveying scope and the main output fields. This is a model of efficient tool description.

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?

Given zero parameters, readOnly annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the key return dimensions (state, last run, 24h cost, open alerts), which is enough for an agent to call and interpret the result. Missing details like sorting or pagination are immaterial for a no-argument status snapshot.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered and there is nothing for the description to add about inputs. Per the calibration baseline, zero-parameter tools receive a 4 because input semantics are moot.

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 names the resource ('all watched agents') and the exact content categories (state, last run, 24h cost, open alerts). It clearly signals a health/status snapshot tool and is distinguishable from siblings like runvouch_alerts or runvouch_runs. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'List', but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit 'when to use' guidance or named alternatives, which matters because siblings like runvouch_alerts and runvouch_runs cover overlapping content. The description implies this is the general overview tool, but it does not state exclusions or selection conditions. An agent can infer likely usage, but the guidance is not explicit.

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