Check Oncall Health Risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the privacy footprint (identifiable employee workload health data), the opt-in configuration gate, the self-hosted-only constraint, and the optional replacement-recommendation behavior. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before calling an open-world read that touches sensitive HR data.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then prerequisites and privacy — good ordering. Slight redundancy: the ONCALLHEALTH_API_KEY requirement is stated twice ('administrator must explicitly configure' and again as 'Requires ONCALLHEALTH_API_KEY environment variable'), and the self-hosted note is appended as a fragment.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. With 100% parameter documentation, explicit prerequisites, privacy disclosure, and an output schema, an agent has everything required to decide whether to call it and how to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by framing start_date/end_date as the 'specified period', tying och_analysis_id to 'On-Call Health analysis', and explaining that replacements are optional (include_replacements). It stops short of explaining what the och_threshold score means or what happens when och_analysis_id is null, which the schema only partially covers.

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 verb ('check') plus a precise resource ('at-risk responders ... scheduled for on-call') and ties it to a named upstream source (On-Call Health analysis). An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like check_responder_availability or get_oncall_schedule_summary purely from the description, since those do not involve health-risk scoring.

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?

Gives strong gating context: opt-in feature, administrator must configure ONCALLHEALTH_API_KEY, self-hosted deployments only. It does not name an alternative tool or say 'use X instead when Y', but the availability preconditions are explicit enough that an agent knows when the tool cannot be used.

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