health_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' tag is largely redundant with that. The real added value is the enumeration of returned fields, which substitutes for the absent output schema and tells the agent what a snapshot contains. No auth or rate-limit context is given, so not a 5.

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 compact lines, capability statement front-loaded before the argument note, with no filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only snapshot tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned data, and the one argument, which is essentially everything an agent needs. Slight incompleteness around valid target values keeps it from a 5.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: 'target: Firewall target name from config; omit for the default' explains both meaning and the optional/null default behavior. It still doesn't say where valid target names come from, so not a 5.

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 verb+resource ('System health snapshot') and enumerates what it covers (hostname, uptime, CPU, memory, load), which is enough to distinguish it from narrower siblings like interface_status or firmware_status without opening a schema. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the many sibling status tools (firmware_status, gateway_status, interface_status). The only usage-like guidance is the parameter note about omitting target for the default, which is param guidance rather than tool selection guidance.

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