get_org_health_events

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 default status=active and case-insensitive service matching, but says nothing about permissions, result size/pagination, or whether 'closed' events in org scope behave differently.

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-loads the core purpose and default behavior, then lists args compactly. The Args block and examples are slightly redundant but each earns its place for a zero-schema-documentation tool.

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 explained, and the description fully covers the three undocumented params plus default behavior. Minor absence of pagination/permission notes keeps it short of full completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it labels all three params optional, defines the filter meaning of service and account_id, marks service as case insensitive, and enumerates status values ('active'/'closed') that the schema itself leaves as a bare string.

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 (Get) and resource (health events) with an explicit scope ('across your AWS Organization'), which separates it from non-org siblings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like get_org_service_health or get_org_service_events.

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?

Explains default behavior ('if no arguments are provided, returns all active org health events') and supplies three concrete example prompts that map to real usage scenarios. No explicit when-not or sibling-routing guidance is given.

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