scf_get_evidence_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the output structure and the classification scheme (green/amber/red against collection frequency). For a read-only health query, the description provides sufficient transparency about what the agent should expect.

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 sentence front-loads the action and resource, then packs the essential output semantics into a compact clause. No filler, no repetition of schema information, and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough: what is returned (per-item freshness status and roll-up summary), the scope (organization), and the evaluation basis (collection frequency). The agent can select and call this tool confidently without additional context.

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 100%: org_id is fully documented with type, format, pattern, and a source hint ('obtain from scf_list_organizations'). The description only weakly reinforces the organization scope and adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action and resource ('get evidence collection health') and defines the output at a useful level of detail: per-item freshness status (green/amber/red) against collection frequency plus a roll-up summary. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like maturity or validation summaries.

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 phrase 'for the organization' clarifies that this tool reports organization-level health rather than item-level detail, and the mention of freshness against collection frequency gives an agent a clear basis for choosing it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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