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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing dedupe behavior (a pass finished in the last five minutes is returned instead of rerunning), concurrency state (run.busy, latest results returned), and rate limits (12 checks per site per day, run.limited). It also clarifies the side effects: writes inventory and alerts, but "reads sites only".

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the global scope before the narrow path. The second sentence is a long compound with stacked parentheticals that could be split, but no sentence is filler.

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, yet the description names the salient return signals (run.busy, run.limited, last_run_at) and the caching/rate-limit behavior. For a single optional-parameter trigger tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 already 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real semantics: subset checks leave other sites alone, do not advance last_run_at, and do not consume the daily on-demand pass quota. That is information the schema cannot convey and materially changes how an agent should call it.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: "Run the site health check now across every connected site and update the inventory and site health alerts." It immediately distinguishes triggering a check from merely reading health (the fleet__health_summary-style siblings) and states the write target (inventory/alerts).

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?

Clear guidance on when to omit site_ids versus when to pass it ("for example one launched today"), and it explains the consequences of the narrow path. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative sibling for agents who only want a read-out, but the triggering-vs-reading distinction is inferable.

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