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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only. The description adds useful context about the checks included (status, response time, TLS/domain, incidents), but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or error behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs in the key output details without wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a simple read-only tool: it states the purpose and the data returned. However, without an output schema and with an undocumented 'site' parameter, the agent still lacks the identifier format and any invocation caveats.

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 only parameter, 'site', has zero schema description coverage and the tool description never clarifies whether it expects a site ID, domain, or URL. The description adds no meaning beyond the property name.

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 identifies a health summary resource and lists its contents: status, response time, TLS/domain checks, and open incidents. This differentiates it from sibling report tools like get_realtime, get_breakdown, and get_stats.

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 intended use is implied by the health-summary framing, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this tool over siblings or provides exclusions. There is no alternative routing or when-not-to-use guidance.

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