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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does the important work: it declares 'Read-only' and specifies the auth requirement (platform staff, account session). It stops short of describing latency, failure modes, or whether the call can be expensive, but the core safety and access profile is present.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (staff-only access) is front-loaded. The enumerated subsystems are compressed into a single clause rather than bulleted prose.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates well by listing the data categories the caller will receive. It is nearly complete for a zero-param read tool, though it does not indicate the shape or format of the health results.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter hints are given.

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 a concrete resource (platform health) and enumerates exactly which subsystems are inspected: database, worker, LiveKit media, email outbox, paired gateway devices, plus concurrent-call ceiling and active calls. That specificity clearly separates it from vague siblings like platform_overview or platform_usage.

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?

It states a clear gating condition up front: 'Platform staff only (account session)', which tells an agent when this tool is permissible. It does not, however, name an alternative diagnostic tool or say when to prefer this over platform_overview, so the routing guidance stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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