get_dataset_health

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety; the description adds useful context about the composite score's components and the structured breakdown, but does not disclose side effects, performance, or required permissions beyond the annotation. This is acceptable given the annotation but not exceptional.

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 that immediately conveys the core purpose. The unexplained '(B4)' is a minor ambiguity, but the overall structure is efficient with no wasted words.

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?

Given the simple input (one parameter) and the readOnly annotation, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (a grade and structured breakdown). It does not enumerate exact output fields, but with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior.

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 single parameter 'dataset' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's function: computing a composite quality grade (A–F) for a dataset, and lists the factors combined. It is specific and distinguishes it from generic 'get' tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling health tools like data_health_radar.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar alternatives such as data_health_radar, get_schema_drift, or get_dataset_history. The description only explains what it does, not when to prefer it.

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