Get Company Health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output's shape (composite score, categorical labels, sub-component breakdown) but says nothing about permissions, cost, idempotency, or what happens when underlying data is sparse, leaving real behavioral gaps for an un-annotated tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line with supporting detail after. It is slightly padded with qualifiers ('holistic', 'multi-factor'), but nothing is redundant or confusing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description helpfully characterizes the score bands and sub-components. For a single-optional-parameter read/analysis tool this is nearly sufficient; only the lack of usage routing keeps it from being 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?

Only one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the domain filter and its default-to-aggregate behavior. The description adds no syntax, valid-value, or casing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 a specific verb+resource: computes a composite organizational health score with a defined 0-100 scale and qualitative bands. It is distinguishable from siblings like query_kpis or get_executive_summary in tone, but never explicitly contrasts itself with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite siblings (query_kpis, get_executive_summary, detect_kpi_anomalies) that plausibly overlap. The only conditional context is for the domain parameter, which is parameter-level, not tool-selection guidance.

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