intuit_health_check

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds only scope/routing context, not behavioral detail about side effects, permissions, or failure modes, but it is not misleading.

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?

Description is brief and front-loaded with the core action. The scope/routing sentence is slightly repetitive with the tool's generic domain-agent pattern but still earns its place by clarifying execution context.

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?

The tool is simple with only two optional parameters and an output schema, so extensive description is not required. However, given destructiveHint=true and no explanation of what a health-check entails or when it might be appropriate, the description leaves important safety context unaddressed.

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 has no descriptions for inputs or message, and the description adds minimal meaning: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'optional JSON string.' This is helpful but does not explain their relationship, expected structure, or how they map to a health-check call, so it only partially compensates for zero 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('intuit domain agent action health_check'), and the tool name clarifies the health-check purpose. It is distinguishable from the many sibling domain actions, though the actual semantics of 'health_check' are not elaborated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dispatch_domain_agent or other domain-specific actions. The routing and scope boilerplate adds context but not usage criteria, so an agent cannot infer the right situation for calling it.

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