query_health_data

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only and idempotent nature is established. The description adds one important behavioral fact: results are scoped to whatever data is currently in the file, and users should check list_metrics for the amount of history available. It doesn't explain routing behavior in detail (e.g., how ambiguity is handled), but the additional context about the underlying file scope is useful.

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, efficient passage that front-loads the core purpose and then adds practical usage guidance. No words are wasted; the routing concept, the preference for alternatives, and the prerequisite call are all packed into two sentences.

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?

In the context of a simple one-parameter tool with handers that mark it read-only and idempotent, the main missing pieces for an agent would be the shape of the structured results and any question formatting limits. The instructions to check list_metrics and set expectations on available history partially fill the context gaps, and the description does not need to explain return values due to a lack of an output schema summary line. Still, the absence of any return-format hint keeps it from a 5, but against the overall simplicity it's fairly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description does explain the question parameter's role by saying pass a question and get routed structured results, which is some semantic content. But it doesn't give examples, constraints, or format guidance for a well-formed question, leaving the parameter meaning incomplete despite a 0% schema coverage.

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 clearly states that this tool takes a natural-language question and returns routed structured results, and identifies it as a convenience tool with a specific purpose. It also explicitly distinguishes it from the specific tools by referring to them as alternatives, which helps differentiate it from siblings.

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 explicitly says to prefer specific tools when possible, and instructs calling list_metrics first to check the data history before using this tool. This gives an explicit usage context and a clear prerequisite. It doesn't list specific alternatives by name or state when-not conditions in detail, but the guidance provided is concrete and actionable.

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