service_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' adds no new safety information. The description does add useful context about what the response aggregates (incidents, related CIs, recent changes), but it does not disclose potential quirks such as filtering semantics, pagination, or how 'health' is determined. This matches the calibration level: annotations cover safety, and the description adds moderate 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 only two sentences and every phrase carries weight: the identifying noun phrase, the explicit return list, and the read-only qualifier. It is front-loaded and free of filler, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only query tool with annotations covering safety and open-world behavior, the description is largely sufficient. It states what is returned and how to address the target. It could be more complete by hinting at the response shape or what 'health' means, but no critical decision-driving information 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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, name_or_sysid, is already described as 'Service or CI name, or sys_id.' The tool description echoes that same idea ('business service or CI') without adding new syntax, format, or interpretation details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('a business service or CI') plus the data it includes: open incidents, related CIs, and recent changes. It is specific and easy to understand, but it does not explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate from, so it stops short of a 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 phrase 'One-call service health snapshot' implies the intended use: when a consolidated view of service health is needed. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives like get_incident, get_cmdb_ci, or service_mapping_summary, nor does it give exclusions.

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