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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what the summary includes: overall status, 24h uptime, response time, SSL warnings, and recent incidents. This helps set expectations beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 front-loads the main purpose and then lists the return contents in a compact, readable list. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates the scope (all monitors) and the content of the summary. An agent can correctly infer what to expect without additional details.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no semantic burden to add beyond what the schema shows. The description's mention of '24h uptime' adds mild context, but with no params the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get a health summary' and identifies the resource as 'across all monitors,' which clearly differentiates it from per-monitor tools like get-response-time-chart and get-ssl-status. It also enumerates the key output categories: overall status, 24h uptime, response time, SSL warnings, and recent incidents.

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 phrase 'across all monitors' implies this is for a global overview rather than per-monitor detail, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus specific siblings like get-uptime-stats, get-ssl-status, or get-monitor-incidents. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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