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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations cannot: that top problems are ordered by priority, that counts are split into active/fixed/came-back, and that scan recency and next scheduled check are included.

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 dense sentence listing the payload followed by a single routing sentence. The most actionable instruction ("start here") is placed last as a clear call to action, and no phrase is padding.

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 carries the return-value burden well, covering every major field an agent would need. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens when the project is ambiguous or never scanned, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 100% and both parameters (top_tasks with default and max, project_id as optional id or slug) are fully documented there. The description's mention of "top open problems by priority" roughly echoes top_tasks but adds no format or behavior detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (Site Health for a project) and enumerates exactly what it yields: overall score, four pillars, problem status counts, top open problems, last scan and next scheduled check. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_results, list_issues, and get_scan_status, which cover narrower slices.

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?

"Start here for any 'what's wrong with my site' question" gives an explicit entry-point rule, which is strong routing guidance against a large sibling set. It stops short of naming alternatives for follow-ups (e.g. list_issues for the full problem list, get_scan_status for scan detail), so the when-not side is left implicit.

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