get_account_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly frames the tool as a diagnostic, non-mutating check of token freshness and rate-limit headroom, and clarifies the kind of answer it provides. This is strong behavioral detail for a read-only health tool, though it never explicitly states that it performs no modifications.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a practical use case. Every word earns its place with no filler, repetition, or unrelated detail.

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, single-parameter diagnostic tool, the description gives the scenario, the purpose, and the key outcome. It doesn't specify the exact return structure, but no output schema exists and the description already conveys what the result should communicate ('token freshness', 'rate-limit headroom', 'OAuth token expired').

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 reported as 0%, and the only parameter is account_id. The phrase 'for a single account' partially compensates by indicating what account_id represents, but the description doesn't explain how to obtain the ID or that it must reference an existing account. The schema confirms it's a uuid string, so the core meaning is inferrable but not fully spelled out.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('token freshness and rate-limit headroom') for a single account, going beyond the generic tool name. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on account health diagnostics rather than account listing, post mutations, or credits.

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 provides a specific usage trigger: 'Useful when posts are failing — tells you if the OAuth token has expired.' This gives the agent a clear context in which to select the tool, although it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name sibling alternatives.

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