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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real substance: no live provider auth probe is performed, so authorization and availability stay explicitly unknown, OAuth store:read consent and an approved owned store are required, and the call is unmetered. It also discloses the response envelope contract. Some sentences ('prices exclude shipping and tax', 'graded and raw copies remain distinct') are irrelevant to a health read and add noise rather than transparency.

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 strong opening is followed by a long block of negatives and cross-domain boilerplate that does not apply to this tool, including price/tax, graded vs raw copies, and 'expired cursors require a fresh search' when the schema has no cursor parameter. The relevant facts (auth, no live probe, unknown handling) are buried mid-paragraph rather than grouped, so signal-to-noise is poor.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers consent scope, store prerequisites, failure modes, and the explicit-unknown semantics that matter for a health read. The one meaningful omission is differentiation from supercatch_get_connection_health and supercatch_get_capabilities, which an agent needs to choose correctly.

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 connection_id is fully documented in the schema, including default behavior when omitted. The description restates that same meaning ('Summary connection IDs identify merged dashboard destinations') without adding format, sourcing, or discovery guidance 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?

The opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Read the canonical integrations dashboard health summary, optionally for its connection_id.' It also clarifies what connection IDs mean (merged dashboard destinations, not every provider account). It never names or contrasts with the closest sibling, supercatch_get_connection_health, and the string of negations ('not listing-level acceptance', 'no prices...') dilutes the core statement.

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?

The only usage direction is 'Use supercatch_get_integration_health for this read in the connected account,' which restates the name rather than explaining when this tool beats supercatch_get_connection_health or the other health/capability siblings. There is no stated exclusion, no precondition ordering, and no scenario-based guidance; an agent must guess between similarly named health tools.

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