wafle_system_stores_health

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that this operation is heavier than wafle_system_health, providing useful context about performance/cost. It does not detail return format, but annotations lower the baseline; this is sufficient.

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, information-dense sentences with 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 parameterless health read, the description fully specifies what the tool covers (products, orders, errors, gateway connectivity) and its relation to the sibling tool. No output schema exists, but the listed metrics imply the response contents.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters.

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 specifies that the tool reports per-store health metrics (products count, orders in the last 24 hours, errors, gateway connectivity), clearly distinguishing it from wafle_system_health by noting it is heavier. This provides a specific resource and scope, earning a 5.

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?

It explicitly compares to wafle_system_health (used for lighter health checks) and lists the detailed metrics available here, helping the agent choose the appropriate tool. The mention of an alternative satisfies the 'when/when-not' criterion.

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