society_health_single

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Check' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what 'detailed health status' includes, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what format the output takes, or any error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that presumably returns system health information.

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 sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple health-checking tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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?

For a health-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'health status' or what information will be returned, leaving the agent guessing about the tool's behavior and output format. The description should provide more context about what health metrics are available or what 'detailed' means in this context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'society' clearly documented as 'Society name (e.g., investment, sales, marketing)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Check detailed health status') and target resource ('of a single Society'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'society_health_all', which appears to check health for all societies rather than a single one.

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. It doesn't mention the sibling 'society_health_all' tool for checking multiple societies, nor does it specify any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for single-society health checking.

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