get_tenant_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what is returned (infra errors, grouped by canonical code) and what is excluded (agent-specific errors). No contradiction. Could mention output shape more explicitly, but this is adequate.

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 with no filler. The core scope is front-loaded, examples are parenthesized, and the sibling comparison is at the end. Every word earns its place.

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-only tool with two optional parameters, the schema covers parameter semantics, annotations cover safety, and the description covers data scope and grouping. The relationship to get_agent_metrics completes the context. Nothing critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: both start_date and end_date have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 domain and scope: tenant-level infrastructure health, showing errors not attributable to a specific agent (rate limit, provider auth, infra), grouped by canonical code. It explicitly differentiates from get_agent_metrics, which is per-agent, so an agent can distinguish this tool without opening the schema.

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 names get_agent_metrics as the complementary sibling and gives a decision rule: use this tool for errors not attributable to a specific agent, as opposed to per-agent metrics. This is explicit when-to-use guidance with an alternative.

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