msio_estimate_health

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral detail by explaining exactly what the scan returns and introduces the threshold concept for staleness. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The purpose and return categories are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is compact and actionable. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is strong for tool selection and safety, and the output schema covers return details. However, with six optional parameters and zero schema descriptions, the lack of parameter guidance makes the definition incomplete for confident invocation beyond defaults.

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 for parameter meaning. It hints at age_threshold_hours via the 'after threshold' phrase, but status, customer_id, date_range_start/end, and max_estimates lack any semantic explanation. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description leaves too much to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Scan estimates and flag those needing follow-up') and identifies two concrete output categories: stale sent estimates and approved-but-unscheduled estimates. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from hcp_get_estimate, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers ('pending estimates, revenue at risk, stale quotes, or what needs attention') and an explicit when-not-to-use condition with a named alternative ('looking for specific estimate details (use hcp_get_estimate)'). This is model guidance for tool selection.

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