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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Get') and adds the admin scope requirement. It also lists the types of data covered, which gives useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (none expected), error behavior without admin scope, or response format, which keeps it from being fully transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every phrase adds value. It lists the report contents in a compact, readable list and states the admin requirement without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the report includes and its access restriction. It does not describe the output structure, but since the report categories are enumerated, an agent can infer reasonable usage. The lack of output schema is offset by the clear enumeration of report sections.

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 no parameters (empty schema), so the description is not required to elaborate on parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly focuses on what the report contains rather than input semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive system health report'), and enumerates the specific content (BullMQ queue depths, active/stuck runs, user sessions, notification delivery stats, recent error counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like active_runs or list_runs, which are narrower in scope.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (when a general health report is needed) and sets an important prerequisite ('Requires admin scope'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives for more specific metrics, leaving room for a bit more guidance.

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