health_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the report's semantic content (last successful check, snapshot age, schedule comparison), which implies a read-only diagnostic. However, it never states that the call is non-mutating, whether it hits the network, or how fresh its own data is — gaps that matter for a staleness-diagnostic tool.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the subject and then the specifics. No filler, no repetition of the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it helpfully signals the key ones. For a zero-parameter, zero-annotation report tool the definition is essentially complete; only the read-only/side-effect statement 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to compensate for on this dimension.

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 names the resource (a data-freshness report) and its contents — each fetcher's last successful check and snapshot age versus schedule — which is far more specific than the bare name 'health_report'. It is clearly distinct from the food/catalog siblings, though it uses a label-style fragment rather than an explicit verb.

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 anything else, nor any precondition such as 'call before trusting snapshot data'. The only guidance is implicit in the field list. No sibling overlaps, but the description still leaves invocation timing entirely to inference.

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