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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the auth requirement (owner JWT) and the shape of the health data returned. It does not state that this is a non-mutating read, whether counts are a snapshot or over a time window, or any rate/pagination behavior.

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 tightly written sentences: the capability and its returned fields come first, the prerequisite second. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields and the auth requirement, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain (snapshot semantics, per-agent breakdown, relationship to sibling health tools).

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% and the single access_token parameter is fully documented there. The description only restates the requirement and adds 'owner JWT' as a qualifier, which is marginal added meaning.

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?

Names the resource precisely ('Owner-level endpoint health across all your agents') and enumerates what it reports (liveness counts, last probe result, retry time). This distinguishes it in spirit from per-endpoint siblings like actora_endpoint_list or actora_endpoint_probe, but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'across all your agents' implies this is the aggregate overview versus per-endpoint tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. With actora_endpoint_list, actora_endpoint_probe, actora_endpoint_active and actora_gateway_health as close siblings, an agent must infer the choice.

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