Get Company Health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a read-only operation through 'Return' and hints that a null domain returns results for all domains. However, it does not explain how the composite index is calculated, whether it aggregates underlying KPIs, or any constraints on the 'all' mode.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: return type, resource, and scoping behavior are all present without redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic invocation and the key domain/all distinction. It falls short by not clarifying what the composite health index represents, how to interpret it, or when it is preferable to sibling reporting tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 schema provides only the parameter name, type, and default null, while the description adds meaningful semantics: domain can be a specific domain or omitted to mean all. This clarifies the otherwise ambiguous null default, though it stops short of giving domain format examples.

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 a specific verb and resource: it returns a composite company health index, optionally scoped to a domain or all. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the 'composite company health index' concept is distinct enough from KPI, anomaly, forecast, and annotation tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like query_kpis or get_executive_summary. The description gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection hints; it only describes what the tool returns.

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