get_service_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful trait the annotations lack: the 20-second freshness window. However, it does not explain what 'health' comprises or what happens when the optional service parameter is omitted.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the freshness window is stated up front. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to serve a tool with an undocumented parameter.

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, no meaningful annotations beyond read-only, and an undocumented optional parameter, the description leaves the agent guessing about return contents and parameter behavior. It needs more than one clause to be callable with confidence.

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% for the single 'service' parameter, so the description carries the burden and fails: it never says whether 'service' selects one service or all, nor what the null default means. 'The services'' plural phrasing actually muddies whether the parameter is required.

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 states a specific verb (get) and resource (live service health) plus the data source (services' stats endpoints), which is clear enough to distinguish from get_logs or query_graph. It stops short of naming a sibling or scope of which services are covered.

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 guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_logs or trace_dependency_path for deeper diagnosis. The agent must infer that this is the quick triage check.

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