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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real context: metrics come from synthetic probing of endpoints and history only grows from prober start, which warns the agent about limited historical depth. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, so coverage is partial rather than complete.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the metric inventory (uptime, p50/p95, flaps) before the probing caveat. No filler, though the parenthetical caveat is slightly compressed for a mixed-language audience.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description does name the returned metrics. However, the unexplained window_days parameter and the unresolved overlap with get_agent_liveness leave gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'jednoho agenta' loosely implies the required agent_id, but window_days (default 7) — the parameter that controls the aggregation period for all reported metrics — is never explained, and the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific resource and metric set: SLA for a single agent, enumerating uptime %, p50/p95 latency, and flaps from synthetic endpoint probing. An agent knows what it returns, but the description does not distinguish it from the sibling get_agent_liveness, which is a real confusion risk given the overlapping 'liveness' framing.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over get_agent_liveness or get_execution_health. The probing note is behavioral context, not usage direction, so the agent must infer selection criteria entirely on its own.

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