get_parser_health_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses little: no auth/tier semantics beyond a vague Pro mention, no cost or rate characteristics, no indication of freshness or scope. Worse, three of the four sentences describe unrelated Pro features (mid-print edits, textures, decorations), which can mislead an agent about what this tool actually does.

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?

Only the first sentence is substantive; the remaining three are a tier upsell and a URL that appear to be boilerplate appended to many tools. The useful purpose statement is front-loaded, but most of the text is waste.

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 zero-parameter aggregate read with no output schema, the description should convey what the result looks like. It hints at grouping (per signal type, per mapping rule) but says nothing about the rate format, time window, or whether data is per-printer or global — gaps an agent will hit immediately on the return value.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does at least frame the two grouping dimensions of the aggregate.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and object: aggregates correction rates broken down by signal type and by mapping rule. That is clear enough to act on, though it never explicitly ties the aggregation to 'parser health' (the name) nor distinguishes it from health-adjacent siblings like design_version_health or get_calibration_health_recommendations.

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 statement of when to call this versus the many adjacent diagnostics tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual cue is an ambiguous 'Requires Kiln Pro' buried in marketing text, which does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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