Get failover status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by revealing that node names are hidden unless include_node_names is true, which affects the output. This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output, followed by a conditional behavioral note. Every word earns its place, and no unnecessary details or redundancy are present.

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 the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides a reasonable overview of the tool. However, it omits usage context and does not explain the meaning or effect of config_path and provider_id, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding of when and how to invoke the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It only clarifies include_node_names, leaving config_path and provider_id unexplained. These parameters are not self-evident, so the description does not sufficiently compensate for the schema's lack of information.

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 function with a specific verb ('Return') and a concrete list of resources ('controller, dedicated Provider group, health state, and pool counts'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_service_status or run_health_check by detailing the exact failover status components. The node name hiding behavior adds additional specificity, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. It lacks any mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Users are left to infer usage solely from the tool's purpose, which is a clear gap given the large sibling list.

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