audience.hf.segment_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing: no indication that this is a read-only diagnostic, no statement of what thresholds constitute 'healthy', no mention of how min_size/max_age_days influence the verdict, and no error or rate-limit context. Only the vague 'Human-friendly' hint at output formatting is offered.

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?

A single short sentence, so it is not bloated, but the 'Human-friendly:' prefix is filler and the sentence is under-specified rather than efficient. Brevity here comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the health check evaluates and what the agent gets back. It provides neither, leaving the agent unable to predict results or interpret the min_size/max_age_days thresholds.

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 80%, with defaults for min_size and max_age_days and an explanation of account_id/direct_client_login already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning and does not compensate for the undocumented required segment_id, which is the one parameter left blank in the schema.

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 names a resource (audience segment) and an action (health check), so the general domain is clear. However, 'health check' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'segment_health' and never says what is actually being checked (size, recency, overlap, deliverability?), so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like audience.hf.get_segment_summary or audience.hf.segment_perf.

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 the many adjacent audience segment tools (get, summary, stats, overlap, perf). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no named alternative — the agent must guess from the name alone.

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