SMART is better for HDDs than SSDs. SSDs can fail before writes are used up or SMART reports errors(thus the emphasis on write durability in reviews is partly a red herring and irrelevant); bad chips or bad soldering are simply improbabilities that will eventually manifest with certainty to someone. It's like check engine lights on cars. Something is going on, but the nitty gritty requires a deeper dive to determine the actual thing that failed.
It can't change how much tender love and care goes into building the hard drive before it gets put together. SMART can't say the metal is worse built than those in an enterprise drive, or that the tolerances are sloppier, because it just can't do that.
I once bought an SSD strictly for pagefile use. Used Toshiba 128GB off Ebay in the MLC era. Needless say, instability was introduced, with simple browsing sessions resulting in unexpected systems crashes or shutdowns. Never happened before with the RAM I used or the HDD pagefile. Removing the used SSD removed the crashes. The only thing noticeable was the number of hours and amount of data written, but nothing reported as problematic in SMART.
I have taken chances with used hard drives and they weren't dead on arrival, although I don't treat them as something that will last. I'm more afraid of used SSDs than used HDDs because of the "bathtub curve" concept. That being, if something has ran for a long while, it'll be stable until it's "expected death scenario". HDDs have that. My experience with SSDs is that if it's used, it's probably already good as dead. They are more volatile and self-obsolescent. Heavy use or lack of use results in the same: useless SSD even if they power on.