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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint — that private investigation content is not exposed in the response — but says nothing about data freshness, staleness of the health snapshot, or whether a degraded result is signaled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the privacy caveat is appended after the scope rather than buried. It is suitably short for a no-argument probe, though the phrasing 'resident ... status' is slightly opaque.

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 params, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does list the three reported facets. It is close to complete; only the shape/format of those status values (e.g., pass/fail vs counts) is left unstated.

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 and the schema forbids additional properties, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly adds no redundant parameter talk.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (FAIE health) and enumerates the three status facets: resident, source-health, and signal-count. It is distinguishable from investigate_faie_evidence and compare_faie_candidates, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_faie_signal_snapshot, which is the nearest neighbor.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is a liveness/health probe rather than the snapshot or evidence tools, and nothing tells it when a health check is preferable.

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