Service health scores

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit for disclosing how the score is derived (container uptime, restarts, earnings activity) and the 0-100 scale, which an agent cannot infer from structured fields alone. It doesn't discuss aggregation granularity or thresholds for a 'failing' service, keeping it out of the top band.

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, no filler, with the resource and metric definition front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an output schema present, return-value structure needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety; the description supplies the metric composition that structured fields omit. The only residual gap is whether services with no activity appear in results and how scores treat missing data.

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 100% and the single 'days' parameter is fully documented with default and 1-90 range, so the baseline 3 applies. The description's 'over the last N days' only gestures at the parameter without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Health score per service') plus the scale (0-100) and the window it covers, which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_fleet_summary and get_collector_alerts. The second sentence adds the diagnostic intent, so an agent knows what decision the tool supports.

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?

'Use it to find services that keep failing' gives a clear selection context and implicitly routes failure triage here rather than to get_service_logs or restart_service. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it lands at a clear-context-but-no-exclusions 4.

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