sf_org_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals a read-only report operation and warns that it is 'heavier' and 'broader', implying a potentially costly call. It lists exactly what data will be collected, which is useful for setting agent expectations.

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 tightly written in two clear parts: what the tool reports, then when to use it versus the sibling. Every sentence adds either content or routing guidance, and the key distinction is front-loaded.

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 no-argument, read-only diagnostic tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs to select and invoke it appropriately. It names the included data categories, warns about cost, and directs the agent away from inappropriate use. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by describing the report scope.

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, so there is nothing for the description to explain about arguments. Without any invocation parameters, the description's focus on scope and purpose suffices.

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 the specific verb 'Report' with the resource 'org's overall health' and enumerates concrete content areas: org type, API/storage/async limits, and license seat usage. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling sf_api_usage by framing itself as a heavier, broader report.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: use this for 'what does this org have and how much of it is used' and not for a quick mid-conversation limit check. The alternative sf_api_usage is named and its narrower scope is described.

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