novada_health_all

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: degraded mode (one probe failure does not hard-fail the whole check), returns per-product table with latency and notes, and provides activation links for unavailable products. Annotations only indicate read-only and idempotent; description adds rich context.

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?

The description is well-structured with bold headings and bullet points. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses clear sections for agent instruction, returns, degraded mode, activation links, and difference from sibling. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: return format, error handling behavior, activation links, and comparison to sibling. It is complete for effective tool use.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none exist, but it explains the tool's output and behavior, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Extended health check that tests ALL Novada product endpoints in parallel and returns detailed per-product status.' It also explicitly distinguishes from its sibling 'novada_health' by noting it tests 6 products (including Unblock API) instead of 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?

The description includes an agent instruction: 'Call this when novada_health shows an issue and you need per-product details, or when setting up Novada for the first time and want to confirm every product is reachable.' It also details the difference from novada_health, helping the agent choose the correct tool.

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