get-health-node-is-quorum-critical

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not contradict them. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the operation is a 'get', which is consistent with a read. No additional traits (e.g., caching, authentication needs) are disclosed, but annotations cover the main safety profile.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words, but it could provide slightly more detail (e.g., about return value) without becoming verbose.

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 tool has no output schema and no parameters, the description should clarify what the health check returns (e.g., a boolean, status string, etc.). It does not explain 'quorum criticality' or the expected output format, leaving the agent with incomplete information for effective invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description does not need to add parameter information; it is sufficient that no parameters are required. The description could explicitly state 'no parameters needed', but its absence is not a significant gap.

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 'Get health check status for node quorum criticality' clearly specifies the action (get) and resource (health check status for node quorum criticality). It distinguishes itself from sibling health check tools like get-health-alarms or get-health-local-alarms by focusing on node quorum criticality. However, it lacks elaboration on what the status entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other health check tools. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to rely solely on the tool name for differentiation.

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