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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds a small amount of context by naming what is verified (sub-account access, builder access), but says nothing about what a failure looks like, whether it is a remote live call, or what includeDoctor triggers.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though that brevity is partly the cause of the missing detail elsewhere.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a 'health' result tells the agent (pass/fail flags? error details?), and it does not. Combined with the unexplained includeDoctor flag, an agent can call this but cannot interpret or parameterize it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter includeDoctor has no description anywhere. The description never mentions it, so an agent has no way to know what it does or when to set it true.

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 action (check access) and two things checked: sub-account access and builder access availability. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like ghl_agency_doctor or ghl_agency_contexts, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which health/diagnostic tool to reach for.

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 guidance on when to use this versus ghl_agency_doctor, ghl_agency_contexts, or ghl_agency_locations, despite an obviously overlapping 'doctor'/diagnostics sibling. No prerequisites (e.g., whether an install/agency connection must exist first) are mentioned.

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