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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it aggregates status and relates to data staleness, but it does not explain the `freshness` parameter's behavior, whether the check is read-only, potential side effects, required permissions, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a health tool with no annotation support.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then the trigger context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations. The description gives a high-level purpose and trigger but omits what 'per-subsystem status' actually includes, what subsystems are covered, what the return format looks like, and how to choose the freshness setting. An agent would likely need to invoke it blindly or make assumptions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the parameter, but it never mentions `freshness` or its enum values. The agent is left without any explanation of what 'live', 'strict', or 'off' mean or how they affect the health aggregation. The schema provides only the enum list, which is not sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb 'Aggregate' with a resource 'system health with per-subsystem status', and immediately gives the triggering use cases: checking if the system/data pipeline is healthy or why data looks missing/stale. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling health/status tools.

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 explicitly states when to call: 'Call when the user asks whether the system/data pipeline is healthy or why data looks missing/stale.' This provides clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related health questions, so it lacks exclusions/alternatives.

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