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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'subscription-gated' access requirement and lists the health dimensions, but it doesn't elaborate on how health is computed, what the response structure looks like (though output schema exists), or any additional behavioral nuances.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence with no redundant words, effectively front-loading the key scope. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a clear explanatory sentence, which slightly impairs immediate comprehension.

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?

The description provides a high-level scope but lacks context on what 'health' means, how the metrics are derived, or how to interpret the results. It also doesn't address selection among sibling tools. The presence of an output schema covers return structure, but the overall operational context is incomplete.

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%: the only parameter, 'limit', has a clear description ('Maximum health rows'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description identifies a specific health surface covering semantic metadata, source freshness, row-count, and evidence contracts, which clearly distinguishes it from raw data retrieval tools. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb-driven action, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like atlas7_readiness or atlas7_evidence_lineage.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Subscription-gated' hints at access constraints but doesn't explain usage context or when this should be preferred over similar atlas7 health/readiness tools.

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