get_parser_health_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes real context beyond them: the Kiln Pro subscription requirement, plus an implication that results surface parsers whose reporting is reliable versus ones frequently corrected. It still omits return shape, whether data is scoped to the user, and how 'health' is quantified.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the prerequisite is stated compactly at the end. The phrasing is colorful rather than precise, which costs a little clarity, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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 no-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the tier gate and roughly what insight is returned, which is adequate. However, since there is no output schema, the description should say what the response looks like (per-parser scores? counts of corrections?), and it never explains what a 'way of reporting measurements' actually is.

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 tool takes zero parameters (empty arguments object, 100% coverage trivially), so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline 4 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?

The description gestures at the tool's output with metaphor ('which of your ways of reporting measurements hold up, and which you often have to correct') rather than naming the resource. The word 'parser' never appears, so an agent learns almost nothing beyond the tool name and cannot distinguish this from siblings like get_calibration_freshness or design_version_health. It is close to a restatement of the title 'Measurement reporting health' rather than a clear verb+resource statement.

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, no conditions that select this over alternatives, and no exclusions. The only actionable guidance is the prerequisite 'Needs Kiln Pro', which tells the agent about a tier gate but nothing about the situation that warrants calling this tool.

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