Client health score

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the score is built from transparent rules with per-rule points listed, and the omit-org behavior fans out to all clients. Not a 5 because no output shape or volume of returned clients is indicated.

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?

One dense but well-ordered paragraph: score definition first, then the rule inputs, then the band thresholds, then the omit-org behavior. Every clause carries information, though the rule list reads as a run-on.

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?

A two-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema: the description is complete enough to call correctly, explaining the metric composition and all-client behavior. Minor gap is the absence of return-shape detail, which is more tolerable for a scoring tool with stated bands.

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 100%, so the schema already documents org ('tenant id or part of organisation name') and as_of (YYYY-MM-DD, defaults today). The description's 'Omit org for all clients' is useful secondary context but largely overlaps the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific artifact, a 0-100 health score per client, and enumerates the exact inputs driving it (receivables share, payroll coverage, expense spike z-score, director loan, DSO, unreconciled items, falling income). Distinct from siblings like payroll_risk or overdue_invoices, which cover only single signals.

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 scoring bands (>=80 healthy, 60-79 watch, <60 at risk) imply interpretation, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as overdue_invoices or payroll_risk when only one signal is needed. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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