Get OtaKit release event health

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: counts are 'bounded' and 'client-reported', and it explicitly warns they are events rather than unique devices/installations/adoption, plus signals that analytics may be unavailable.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and returned metrics, followed immediately by the most important interpretive caveat. No padding or restated field names.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by naming the four metric groups. It is essentially complete for a read-only tool, though it does not define units or the exact meaning of 'bounded'.

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 description coverage is 100%, so appId, window, and releaseId are fully documented in the schema (including the enum and default). The description adds no separate parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (release event health) and enumerates the payload: event counts, rollback share, auto-revert thresholds, analytics availability. An agent immediately knows the tool's output domain, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling get_release_state or get_bundle.

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?

Usage is only implied by the metrics named; there is no explicit 'use this when…' statement and no mention of when to prefer get_release_state or list_events. The 'Counts are events, not unique devices' caveat aids interpretation but does not route tool selection.

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