production_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying logic (composing orders by state, identifying late starts and stuck orders, rule-based verdict) and parameter semantics. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but 'Report' implies no mutation. The description reveals enough behavioral detail to set expectations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with a clear summary. It uses a concise paragraph followed by a labeled Args list. Every sentence earns its place, 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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains inputs, logic, and scope, and does not need to describe return values. The lack of annotations is compensated by the detailed description.

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 provides only types and defaults with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter in the Args section: stuck_days, top_n, timezone_offset, and company. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('manufacturing health'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on late starts and stuck orders in production. The phrase 'in one call' highlights its consolidated nature, making it distinct from other report tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool — when a comprehensive manufacturing health report is needed. It provides context about the type of data and metrics included. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, so it falls 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.