get_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the kinds of checks surfaced and that known checks come with the usual fix. It doesn't say whether results are cached or how the Prowlarr case is triggered, but the addition over annotations is substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then issue examples and sample queries. No filler sentences, though the trailing example-utterance block is slightly less information-dense than the opening.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the issue taxonomy and fix hint. The one loose end is the Prowlarr mention that the enum does not support, which could mislead an agent about available service values.

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% and there is a single optional parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no guidance on the service parameter and in fact mentions Prowlarr, which is not a valid enum value ('sonarr' or 'radarr'), creating mild ambiguity rather than clarification.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it reports health warnings and errors from Sonarr/Radarr. The concrete enumeration of issue types (unreachable download client, missing root folder, failing indexers) makes the scope unambiguous and separates it from siblings like get_logs or get_system_status.

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 example utterances ('Any health warnings?', 'Is something wrong with Radarr?') imply the intended context, but the description never states when to prefer this over get_logs, get_system_status, or diagnose_import, nor any exclusions.

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