Device health by site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the ordering rules (longest offline first, sites with most offline devices first) and the shape of what comes back, but says nothing about volume, pagination, or freshness of the underlying data.

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?

Purpose and returned fields are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by ordering rules and then usage triggers. There is no filler, though the single long opening sentence packs several distinct ideas together where a short break would read faster.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so: it lists the metrics, the per-machine detail, and the sort order. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or interpret the result 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the case-insensitive substring match with a concrete example, so the description need not repeat it. The description's only related signal is 'check one site before a visit', which does not add syntax or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and scope ('Device health per site (Atera customer)') and enumerates exactly what is reported: total devices, online count, and each offline machine with last-seen age. This is clearly distinct from the ticket-, alert-, and workload-oriented siblings, so an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use triggers ('which store has machines down?' and 'check one site before a visit'), which is stronger than most definitions. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming an alternative sibling (e.g. open_alerts for alert-driven triage), so it is not a full 5.

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