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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: secrets are reported as names only and never values, crash reasons and previous crashed containers are surfaced, and logs are opt-in for a single service. That is meaningful disclosure for a diagnostic read tool.

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?

One dense but well front-loaded sentence that puts the primary payload (per-service status) first and appends secondary details. It reads as a run-on and could be split, but almost every clause conveys distinct return-value information, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does so thoroughly across services, config, secrets, and logs. However, for a 4-parameter tool it leaves 'name' and 'siteId' entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently construct a call targeting a specific site or service.

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 only 50%: 'name' and 'siteId' have no schema descriptions, and the description never mentions either, so half the parameters carry no semantics anywhere. It gestures at the logs parameter ('recent logs of one service') but omits the tail default and the previous-container inclusion detail that the schema does provide.

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?

Names a specific resource (the site's container services) and enumerates exactly what is returned: per-service status, restart/waiting/crash reasons, volumes, stored config, secret names, and optional logs. That is far more concrete than a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_site, but the container-service scope is distinctive enough for an agent to recognize.

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 statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (e.g. get_site for general site config vs this for container health). The optional logs behavior is described, but no selection guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer intent.

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