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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world read. The description adds real value by defining the score scale and its inputs, but says nothing about freshness/staleness of the score, behavior for contacts with no engagement, or error conditions — gaps that matter for interpreting the result.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs the useful score definition into the same clause. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 partly compensates by explaining the return range (0-100) and what drives it. It does not say whether the response is a bare number, an object with a breakdown, or includes a last-updated field, which leaves a modest gap for a read tool.

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% with only two parameters (apiKey, contactId), both documented in the schema. The description adds no format or sourcing detail for contactId, and the apiKey override is covered entirely by the schema, so the 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 verb (get) and resource (contact health score), and adds the substantive detail that the score is 0-100 and derived from recent engagement (opens, clicks, replies). That distinguishes it from the many other contact-related siblings such as get_contact_timeline, though no sibling is named 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 description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g., contact must exist / have engagement history), and does not point to an alternative tool for related data like timeline or message events. An agent must infer applicability from the name alone.

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