get_crm_health_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool shows current state (active/disabled, error counter, list) but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive, nor mention authorization or rate limits.

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 a single concise sentence in Spanish, front-loaded with the purpose. It avoids wasted words, though could be slightly more structured.

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 simple read tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is shown (endpoints status, active/disabled, error counter, list). It mentions the return format implicitly (list of endpoints).

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 input schema has zero parameters, so description's job is minimal. Baseline for 0 params is 4; description adds no parameter info but also does not need to.

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 clearly states it shows CRM health status, including endpoint activity, error counters, and list. It uses a specific verb ('Ver') and resource ('endpoints CRM'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_crm_customer or test_crm_endpoint.

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 implies usage for checking CRM health but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives like test_crm_endpoint or reset_crm_errors.

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