check_item_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level purpose without explaining whether the operation is read-only, what side effects might occur, or what the output structure looks like. 'Healthy' is not defined in terms of response content or status codes.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Check') and clearly conveys the tool's purpose. Every word adds meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter scope, but it lacks information about return values, the meaning of 'healthy' in response terms, and any potential errors or edge cases. Since no output schema exists, more detail on expected results would improve completeness.

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 a bare 'item' string with no description and 0% coverage. The description partially compensates by clarifying that the parameter is optional and can target one specific item or all items, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify format, allowed values, or how to select 'all' precisely.

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: checking whether one or all linked Plaid items are healthy or need re-authentication. The verb 'check' is specific and the resource 'linked Plaid items' is distinct from sibling tools like list_items or get_balances, which focus on listing or retrieving other data.

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 phrase 'one or all' implies the tool can be used for a single item or all items, giving some usage context. However, there are no explicit instructions on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_item or sync_transactions, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied from the purpose.

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