production_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool queries open production orders and computes a backlog, late-start orders, stuck orders, and a verdict, which implies a read-only analysis. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, require permissions, or have side effects.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, and the Args section is well-structured. It is slightly verbose (e.g., 'Composes open mrp.production orders...') but each sentence adds value. Overall, it is effective and reasonably concise.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers input parameters well and explains the output conceptually (backlog, behind-start, stuck, verdict). It does not detail the output schema fields, but that is acceptable since the output schema exists. Missing: error handling, permissions, or rate limits, but for a reporting tool, it is mostly complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: stuck_days (with default and meaning), top_n, timezone_offset (with default and timezone example), and company (with ilike filter and optionality). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Report manufacturing health — late starts and stuck orders — in one call.' It clearly specifies the verb (report), resource (manufacturing health), and distinct content (late starts, stuck orders). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inventory_risk or procurement_watch, which focus on different aspects.

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 this is a consolidated health report for manufacturing orders, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inventory_risk' or 'project_status_report'. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, only the action it performs.

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