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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the content of the health report (profiles loaded, signal counts, load errors), which tells an agent what evidence a 'healthy/degraded' read will actually surface.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the sibling disambiguation. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential missing context: what 'status' means here and how it differs from the two other layer-status tools. It stops short of saying how the health is summarized or whether load errors are truncated, which would complete the picture.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema already covers the empty argument object at 100% coverage. Baseline 4 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?

Names the resource and scope precisely ('Health of the SOFTWARE layer') and enumerates what the report contains: software profiles loaded, signal counts, load errors. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling layer-status tools (hardware_get_system_status, mechanical_get_system_status) by stating they report different layers of the same server.

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 sentence 'One status tool per layer - the three report different layers, not the same server' effectively routes an agent: pick this one when the question concerns the software layer, and do not assume the siblings duplicate it. No explicit when-not or prerequisite guidance, but the disambiguation is clear.

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