summarize_integration_health

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds the 500-message cap, the 24-hour default, and a 'Check truncation' caveat, which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations, but they are not elaborated.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding and the core scope is front-loaded. 'Check truncation' is cryptic but the overall structure is efficient.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should do more to explain what statistics are returned and how the time parameters behave. It covers the basic scope and one caution, but leaves key details missing.

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% for two optional date-time parameters. The description only implies a default time range ('past 24 hours') and never explains startTime/endTime naming, format, or what happens when only one is supplied. Partial compensation at best.

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 states a general verb+resource ('Calculate statistics from up to 500 messages'), but 'statistics' is vague and the description never mentions 'integration health' from the tool name. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling analysis or message-retrieval 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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The mention of a 24-hour default and 500-message cap gives context but does not say when an agent should choose this tool over get_recent_failures, analyze_failure, or search_messages.

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