account_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, and the description's only behavioral claim ('read-only') simply restates that. It does not explain what the baseline consists of, whether partial failures are reported, or what access verification means in practice, adding essentially nothing beyond the structured safety profile.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity contributes to the vagueness noted elsewhere rather than being a flaw of verbosity.

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?

An output schema and rich annotations exist, so return shape and safety need not be spelled out. However, for a composite tool that gathers identity, access, and account data across a profile and ad account, the description gives no indication of what the check validates or how to interpret results, leaving the definition under-specified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (adamId, profile, adAccountId) are documented in the schema, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or dependency semantics (e.g., why adamId is optional), making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a verb ('collect') and a resource ('identity, access, and account baseline'), so the reader gets the general idea of a consolidated health check. But 'baseline' is vague and the description never distinguishes this tool from adjacent siblings like auth_check, ad_account_get, or org_get, leaving ambiguity about what is actually aggregated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (profile and adAccountId are required), and no routing to alternatives even though auth_check and ad_account_get clearly overlap. The agent must infer the appropriate caller context entirely.

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