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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and openWorld=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: owner-only auth requirement, that agent_id and owner key persist across renames, that names are self-declared and unverified, that setting visibility=private revokes subscriptions, and that endpoint/webhook must be public URLs the caller controls.

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-loads the critical constraint ('Owner-only update') and then packs dense, non-redundant guidance into short clauses. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 10-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, several parameters (checks_config, heartbeat_enabled, check_interval_sec) are never addressed, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains name, visibility, paused, endpoint_url, and webhook_url, but leaves checks_config, heartbeat_enabled, check_interval_sec, api_key, and agent_id completely undocumented, so it only partially compensates.

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 clear verb and target ('Owner-only update') and enumerates the updatable fields (name, visibility, paused, endpoint, webhook), so an agent understands the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like register_agent_health or delete_agent_health, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context for parameters: 'Pause when retiring/testing; resume with paused=false' and 'Set visibility=public to share... or private to revoke sharing and subscriptions.' There is clear contextual guidance but no explicit exclusions or routing to alternative tools.

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