exchange_get_health_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get health report' implies a read-only query, and 'rollup per server/DAG' indicates an aggregation behavior. However, it does not disclose output shape, whether all health sets are included by default, or how the rollup is structured, leaving notable gaps for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler. The parenthetical cmdlet name adds precision, and the dash-delimited scope note is efficient. It loses one point because 'Get health report' largely repeats the tool name, though the overall structure remains focused.

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?

Given two undocumented optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a cluster of similar health-related sibling tools, this description is too minimal. It leaves the agent without enough information to know what the report contains, how parameters affect the query, or how this differs from superficially similar health tools.

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%, and the description does not explain either 'server' or 'healthSet'. 'Per server/DAG' vaguely hints that 'server' can identify a server or DAG, but it provides no detail on valid values, defaults, or what 'healthSet' means. The description does not compensate for the empty schema descriptions.

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 and resource ('Get health report') and clarifies the scope as a 'rollup per server/DAG', which helps distinguish it from sibling health-related tools. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly contrasting with exchange_get_server_health or exchange_test_service_health, but the core purpose is clear.

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 phrase 'rollup per server/DAG' implies this is for aggregate health reporting at the server or DAG level, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related health-check siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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