get_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: only non-OK components are returned (a filtering rule) and health is derived from vendor rollups (iDRAC/iLO) where available. It does not explain the non-idempotent hint or any auth/rate-limit constraints.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the resource and the return vocabulary exclamation with zero 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by stating the health vocabulary and the non-OK filtering rule, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. For a one-optional-param read-only tool this is nearly complete; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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% and the single optional 'targets' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'all' default and 'tag:<tag>' syntax. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the schema does all the work; baseline 3 is correct.

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 names a specific resource (overall server health) and goes further to define the returned shape: an OK/Warning/Critical rollup plus every non-OK component. That is concrete and distinguishable from raw-detail siblings like get_sensors or get_power_state, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no routing to alternatives such as get_sensors for per-sensor detail or get_event_log for history. The summary nature of the output weakly implies a triage use case, but nothing is stated.

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