get_health_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include a coverage block, that aggregate is always computed over the full range even when points are rolled up, and that the server rolls up rather than truncates. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond simple 'read' semantics.

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?

Three sentences total, each earning its place: the first gives purpose, the second establishes core status, the third provides critical caveats. It is dense but not overly verbose, though slightly less concise than a two-sentence ideal.

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?

Though no output schema is present, the description explains key return elements (coverage block, aggregate behavior) and rollup semantics, which is substantial. For a retrieval tool with well-described parameters, this is largely sufficient, though a bit more on response shape would be ideal.

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 83% with detailed descriptions for most parameters. The description adds overall context (optional date range, aggregation) but does not detail each parameter beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the primary work.

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 'Get' with a clear resource ('metric') and scope (optional date range, aggregation). It positions itself as 'The core data-retrieval tool,' distinguishing it from siblings like get_trends and compare_periods.

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 context as the 'core data-retrieval tool' and warns about checking coverage before trusting long windows, implying when to be cautious. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to use them instead.

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