Read the home's health score

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond by enumerating the concrete shape of each finding (severity levels, evidence, recommendation, entities) and giving example categories of problems detected. With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately, plus it discloses the integration prerequisite.

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?

Front-loaded with the score and its scale, then the finding structure, then usage, then prerequisites. The example list ('devices flooding the recorder... error noise') is longer than strictly needed, but each clause adds concrete flavor for an agent judging relevance.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing exactly what a report contains. Combined with the setup prerequisite and the sibling routing to vome_health_check, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 100% for the single optional instance_id, and the schema description already explains the refusal-on-mismatch behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for fully-documented schemas applies.

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?

States the specific verb and resource: returns Vome's health score out of 100 with all findings, each carrying severity, title, evidence, recommendation and involved entities. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling vome_health_check, which 're-scores' the home, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('use it to see what is wrong with a home and fix it, finding by finding'), what to do next ('then vome_health_check re-scores it'), and the prerequisite ('it needs the Vome integration... vome_health_check runs a first check'). Alternative and sequencing are both named.

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