health_check

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does state that this is an audit, mentions that it returns remediation guidance, and discloses that sampling bounds per-prefix checks for speed. It does not explicitly say it has no side effects, mention permission requirements beyond 'ASN you control', or describe the response shape.

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 tight and front-loaded: first the overall purpose and scope, then the specific checks and remediation behavior, then a performance-related sampling caveat. Every sentence earns its place and no wording is redundant.

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?

The description is strong for tool selection: it clearly conveys a read-only-style audit, what it covers, and that it is fast due to sampling. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still has to guess about the exact structure of returned findings and how to format the optional `checks` values, so completeness is only partial.

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%, so the description bears more responsibility for explaining parameters. It adds useful meaning by clarifying that the target is an ASN the user controls and by listing the major check domains, which likely map to the `checks` parameter. It does not define accepted string values for `checks` or explain the `window` parameteperture in detail.

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 a specific audit purpose: full hygiene and exposure review for a controlled ASN, and it enumerates concrete check categories such as RPKI/IRR coverage, MOAS, ROa max-length, and transit diversity. It stands apart from the sibling tools by scope and comprehensiveness, but it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling alternative.

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 'for an ASN you control' gives useful context, and calling it the 'single most valuable operator call' implies using it as a first-pass comprehensive audit. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over granular tools like path_diversity, visibility, or validate_announcement, nor when not to use it.

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