Contacts Health

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own: nothing about what the probe inspects (e.g., contact store integrity, sync status, permissions), failure modes, or auth needs. It does not contradict the annotations, but it discloses nothing beyond them.

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 one short sentence, but this reads as under-specification rather than conciseness: it conveys essentially no functional content beyond the tool name and the server that exposes it. It does not earn its place by helping an agent decide whether to invoke the tool.

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 tool defined entirely by its 'health' function, the description is the sole source of functional meaning and it is empty. Although an output schema exists, the agent still cannot anticipate what the health probe reports or why it exists alongside the other *_health and contacts_* tools.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed - a parameterless tool cannot be mis-invoked based on arguments.

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 restates the tool name verbatim ('contacts_health') and adds only generic framing ('Delegated Apple domain tool ... exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP'). It never states what action the tool performs or what a health check evaluates, so an agent must infer the purpose from the *_health naming pattern rather than from the documentation.

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 offers no guidance on when to call contacts_health, no conditions that favor it over contacts_list_contacts or the other *_health siblings, and no exclusions. An agent receives zero decision support for selecting this tool.

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