scf_get_frequency_health

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it states the viewer role, the 90-day lookback window, and that only misaligned items are returned. This gives the agent a clear behavioral contract without contradicting the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that covers purpose, time window, permission, and output filtering without filler. Every clause contributes information an agent needs to select and 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 single-parameter, read-only tool with a fully documented schema, the description supplies the essential invocation context: what the report detects, the time window, the permission level, and the output filter. It does not describe result field shapes or pagination, but no output schema exists and the core selection/invocation needs are met.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single org_id parameter, including a UUID format and a pointer to scf_list_organizations for obtaining it. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and identifies a precise resource: evidence whose declared frequency disagrees with observed upload cadence over the last 90 days. It also distinguishes itself from broader evidence-health siblings by emphasizing that only misaligned items are returned, so an agent can tell this apart from tools like scf_get_evidence_health.

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 clear usage context: it applies to evidence frequency-vs-cadence mismatches over a 90-day window, and it states that the operation is a read available to a viewer role. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to infer when to call it.

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