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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well established. The description adds useful context about the contents and scope of the instructions, giving the agent expectation about what information will be provided without contradicting the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that begins with the critical directive 'Read FIRST' and then lists the covered topics in a compact, scannable format. Every phrase earns its place and there is no 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?

For a parameterless instructions tool with output schema available and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what content to expect (purpose, endpoint ownership, heartbeat setup, scoring limits, API usage) and signals where this fits in the overall workflow.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema carries no burden and the description needs to explain nothing extra. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's content rather than 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 clearly identifies this as a 'read first' instructions tool, listing the specific topics it covers: purpose, endpoint ownership, heartbeat setup, scoring limits, and API/free service usage. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools that perform actual health operations, though it stops short of explicitly stating 'returns onboarding instructions'.

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?

'Read FIRST' is an explicit temporal cue that this tool should be used before the other agent health tools. It conveys the intended ordering and scope of use, though it does not directly name sibling alternatives or explicitly say 'use this before agent_health_checks'.

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