get_account_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'checks' and 'tells you' about token freshness and rate-limit headroom, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, whether it makes external API calls that consume rate limits, or the meaning of 'headroom' in terms of return values. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what the tool does, the second provides context and an example use case. There is no wasted wording.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the tool's input and purpose but does not describe the return format or how to interpret 'rate-limit headroom.' Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent can expect in the response. This gap makes the description incomplete, though it covers the core use case.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'a single account' but does not explicitly name or explain the 'account_id' parameter, its format, or where to obtain it. The schema provides type/format but no semantic guidance. The agent would need to infer that account_id refers to the target account, but the description lacks sufficient detail.

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: 'Check token freshness and rate-limit headroom for a single account.' The verb 'check' is specific, the resource is 'account health', and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_accounts by focusing on a single account's health rather than listing accounts. It accurately conveys the tool's unique purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Useful when posts are failing — tells you if the OAuth token has expired.' This gives a clear context for invocation, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is strong enough to inform an agent's decision, meriting a 4 rather than a 5.

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