s1_estate_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool 'sweeps all agents server-side', lists the exact metrics returned, and references the safety cap. It doesn't cover performance or rate limits, but this is sufficient for a read-only overview.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by concrete output details and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the table columns and clarifying the server-side sweep. It doesn't mention pagination, but max_agents serves as a safety cap, making the description adequate for an overview 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description only adds incidental context (e.g., 'not seen for N days' for stale agents) but doesn't meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Estate-wide endpoint health overview grouped by site' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly differentiates from siblings by stating this is 'the primary tool for MSP health/AV reporting' and explicitly points to s1_agents for individual machine drill-down.

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?

It gives a clear use case ('what is the state of every client's endpoints?') and explicitly instructs to 'Use s1_agents to drill into the individual machines afterwards.' However, it doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance for other siblings like s1_threats.

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