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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a health verdict and is intended for diagnosing the host, which provides some extra context, but it doesn't disclose any nuanced behavior beyond what the annotations and output schema cover.

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 with no fluff. The core action and data scope are in the first sentence, the second adds the diagnostic trigger and parameter condition efficiency.

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?

Given the annotation coverage, a full output schema, and only 2 optional parameters, the description is completely sufficient. It states the resource, the condition for use, and the key optional parameter without missing any critical information.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's mention of setting include_processes=true adds no new information beyond the schema's own description. Agent_id is not addressed, but the schema already describes it as optional quota accounting.

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'), names the resource ('host OS telemetry'), and lists its key contents (CPU, memory, swap, disk, network, and an ok/warn/critical health verdict). It clearly differentiates this tool from the unrelated sibling tools by focusing on host OS diagnosis.

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 description explicitly says 'Call to diagnose this MCP host', giving the primary use case. It also gives action guidance for the include_processes parameter. It does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but none of the sibling tools offer similar functionality, so the context is adequate.

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