customer_success_health_score_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not state whether the action is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. Side effects, rate limits, or response characteristics are absent.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it includes unnecessary routing detail ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher...') that does not aid selection or invocation, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, for a tool that runs a report, the agent would benefit from knowing what the report covers or what the action entails. The behavioral transparency gap also contributes to incompleteness. Adequate but not thorough.

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. It explains that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This adds basic meaning beyond the bare schema, but lacks examples or details on expected JSON structure, limiting usefulness for correct parameter construction.

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 the tool runs the 'health_score_report' action in the customer_success domain, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling customer_success tools like churn_risk_scan or onboarding_health, and could be more explicit about what the report contains.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as customer_success_churn_risk_scan or customer_success_onboarding_health. No when-not-to-use or context for selection is given.

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