get_health_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds a meaningful behavioral detail—'scrubbed of internal fields for customer'—which tells the agent that output content changes by audience. It does not go further to discuss authentication, latency, or what 'operational health' includes, so transparency is only partial.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose before the parameter-specific scrub detail. Every word earns its place; no 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 single-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description covers the core purpose and the main behavior difference by audience. It omits sibling differentiation and explicit usage conditions, but the availability of an output schema reduces the burden of describing return shape.

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 0%, but the description directly addresses the single `audience` parameter by tying it to the report and explaining that customer output is scrubbed of internal fields. This adds value beyond the raw enum values and default, though it doesn't explicitly define what an internal audience receives.

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 the tool produces an 'operational health report' scoped by `audience`, which identifies the resource and intent clearly. It distinguishes itself from trend/risks/claims siblings by naming a distinct report type, though it doesn't explicitly say 'returns' or 'gets' and doesn't name the alternative 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?

The description gives audience context and mentions scrubbing for customer, so there is an implied target use, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to siblings like get_metric_trend or get_risks. An agent is left to infer the right selection from the name and phrase 'operational health report.'

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