hostgroup_overview_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing that this is a composite/aggregate call ('in one call') returning counts, a severity breakdown, and a ranked host list — context annotations do not convey. It stops short of mentioning pagination, result-size limits, or auth/server requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place. The roll-up contents are front-loaded, followed by usage triggers and the replacement chain — no filler, no redundancy.

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 explained, yet the description still sketches the return shape helpfully. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering params, plus explicit usage routing, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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% and all five parameters are documented in-schema (including the detailed raw_json policy/injection caveat). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Host group health roll-up') and enumerates exactly what is returned: member-host counts, active-problem severity breakdown, and top-N most-problematic hosts. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the hostgroup_get/host_get/problem_get chain, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Names concrete prompt patterns ('how is the <hostgroup> doing?', 'give me a daily health report for <group>') and explicitly says it replaces the hostgroup_get + host_get(groupids=) + problem_get(hostids=) chain, which is precisely the selection decision an agent faces against those siblings.

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