verify_analysis_health

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by enumerating the exact checks performed (status, sheet count, visual-layout alignment, calculated-field references), which genuinely informs the agent what a healthy result entails. It omits failure/return-shape detail, but that is partly the output schema's job.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage timing, then a clean bulleted list of checks. Every sentence earns its place and the scoping/timing constraint leads rather than trails.

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 read-only verification tool with a full output schema, the description supplies the trigger condition and the checklist of what is validated. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents analysis_id fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (health check) and resource (QuickSight analysis) plus the checks it performs. The 'reviewer that ensures changes actually took effect' framing clearly distinguishes it from the mutation and read siblings in the list.

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?

"Use this AFTER any write operation to verify the analysis is healthy" gives an explicit when-to-use trigger tied to the write workflow. It does not name specific alternative verification tools or state when NOT to run it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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