account_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose two key traits: it requires both read grants and returns a refusal rather than a partial answer if only one is held. It also explains the rationale for this design. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, though 'view' and 'read grants' strongly imply it.

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 sentences with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and a concise behavioral rationale in the second. No filler or repetition.

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 health summary with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential failure condition (missing read grant) and the tool's purpose. It omits explicit when-to-use guidance, but sibling context partially covers that. Overall it is adequate for a simple tool.

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 schema only provides the name and type of customer_id with no description, and the tool description does not mention customer_id at all. The meaning is inferable from 'a customer,' but the description does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage by explaining expected format or semantics.

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 identifies a joined view of a customer spanning contract, open tickets, and overdue balance, which distinguishes its intent from narrower sibling tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' and does not name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

The description implies the tool is for obtaining an overall customer health summary, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over find_customer, customer_tickets, or customer_invoices. No when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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