Stats

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds meaningful operational traits: a fixed one-hour lookback, no tenant scoping, and an activation gate where HTTP 403 means the caller must contact support. Return shape is not described, but with no output schema that is the main remaining gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the scoping caveat, then the activation error. The leading "Stats." merely repeats the title and is the one wasted token.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, time window, and the one likely failure mode (403/activation). It could say more about what the health payload contains, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters and their relationship ("Provide at least engine or path") are already documented. The description adds only the time-window framing, not additional syntax or semantics for path/engine, so baseline 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?

"Infrastructure health for an engine or endpoint over the last hour" gives a concrete resource (infra health) and scope (per engine/endpoint, one-hour window). The added note that it is "Not scoped to your account or tenant" implicitly separates it from account-oriented siblings like usage, though no sibling is named.

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?

It supplies context (one-hour window, tenant-agnostic, per-account activation) that implies when to reach for it, but never states when to use a sibling such as usage instead, nor any explicit exclusions beyond the 403 case.

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