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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output content (success rate, failure reasons, affected environments) but does not mention whether it is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or response format. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key concept ('Saúde comunitária do canal') and lists specific output aspects. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what it returns. It does not describe the return structure, but for a health-check tool, the listed metrics are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. Missing details like response format are minor.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'id' with a clear description ('ID do canal no iptv-org'), so the schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for well-documented parameters.

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 states that the tool provides community health metrics for a channel, specifically success rate, failure reasons, and affected environments. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_channel' (basic info) and 'health' (generic health), though it could be more explicit about the action (e.g., 'retrieves' or 'reports').

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with siblings like 'health' or 'play_reports', leaving the agent to infer its usage.

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