rc_health_check

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the read-oriented behavior ('Pulls MRR, churn...') and the analytical nature of the report. However, it does not explicitly state whether any data is modified, provide data-freshness caveats, or describe edge cases.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and report purpose, followed by supporting details. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no repetition or 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 parameterless report-generation tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns: key metrics, trend analysis, and health signals. It could be slightly stronger by noting how this report differs from the sibling overview/chart tools, but the core context for invocation is present.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema provides no parametr semantics. The description adds useful context about the report's contents, which is reasonable for a parameterless tool and meets the baseline of 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('subscription health report'), and lists concrete metrics such as MRR, churn, trial conversion, and active subscribers. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools, though the word 'comprehensive' is somewhat broad and could apply to rc_get_overview as well.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like rc_get_overview or rc_compare_periods. The description implies a broad reporting use case but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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