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

With annotations only containing a title, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'View' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the description clarifies how api_key changes the scope of returned data. It lacks explicit statements about side effects or rate limits, but for a status read the information is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers the core purpose and how to scope data with api_key. It does not explicitly address the system parameter, but the schema already documents that. Minor ambiguity about whether platform health requires system=true is handled by the schema.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters comprehensively (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's api_key mention ('Pass api_key to see agent-specific data') adds little beyond the schema's own description ('Pass to see your profile and tier'), providing no new semantic value.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('View') and resources ('platform health and your agent dashboard'), and lists concrete return values (governance mode, trust tier, profile). However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like platform.health or agent.profile, which overlap in scope.

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?

The description provides a conditional usage hint ('Pass api_key to see agent-specific data') but does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as platform.health or agent.profile. There are no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving the usage context implied rather than explicit.

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