openmeter_outbox_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the metrics examined (pending events, dead letters, stuck leases, throughput), which helps the agent understand the output scope. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention required permissions, or describe any side effects or rate limits.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The colon-separated list of health aspects is efficient and scannable.

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 simple diagnostic read tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose and the dimensions checked. It could be improved by explicitly noting that it is a read-only operation or by mentioning any expected return format, but the core information is present.

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 100%, so the single 'hours' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the lookback window, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('OpenMeter outbox queue health'), and enumerates the health aspects it examines. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openmeter_dead_letter_retry, but never names alternatives explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives is provided. The purpose implies monitoring, but the description does not tell the agent when this tool is preferable to openmeter_dead_letter_retry or other health diagnostics.

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