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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: the staleness definition ('no activity in 14 days') and the three content categories the result covers. It omits any indication of result size, ordering, or whether stale accounts are also counted in the status/tier breakdown.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the three output categories are front-loaded. The opening 'List health:' is slightly cryptic as a verb-resource pair, but nothing is wasted.

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, the description must convey the return shape, and it names the three categories but not their form (counts, grouped lists, per-account rows) or whether the campaign_id filter narrows all three. For a read-only overview tool with a 100%-documented single parameter, it is adequate but leaves the result structure ambiguous.

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% for the single campaign_id parameter, and the schema states it filters to an existing campaign id. The description never mentions campaign scoping, so it adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 specific resource (a CRM health overview) and enumerates its three components: accounts by status/tier, open gaps, and stale accounts. An agent can tell it produces a composite health listing rather than a single-record read. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like crm_gaps or crm_pipeline, which likely overlap on the 'open gaps' portion.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the dashboard/overview tool versus crm_gaps (gap listing), crm_pipeline, or crm_today from the sibling names alone. The 14-day staleness rule hints at a monitoring use case but is not framed as guidance.

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