get_data_health

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

The annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to cover those basics. The description adds a meaningful behavioral limitation beyond the annotations: it does not test authentication, preventing an agent from misinterpreting auth failures as data-health issues.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose and the key limitation with no filler. The main function is stated first and the important caveat follows immediately.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description gives the agent the essential high-level return concept and the critical limitation. It could specify the exact shape or categories of configuration/capability limits, but nothing necessary to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 the empty input schema is fully self-explanatory and the description has no parameter burden to carry. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it reports configuration and capability limits, rather than simply restating the tool name. It also adds an explicit boundary by saying it does not test authentication, which helps separate it from auth-focused siblings, though 'configuration and capability limits' remains somewhat abstract.

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 provides a useful when-not signal: this tool will not test authentication, so an agent should not reach for it to check auth status. However, it does not name an alternative tool or state positive conditions for choosing this tool over closely related siblings like get_cache_status.

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