getNetworkHealthSummary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: multi-endpoint aggregation in a single call, and that 'individual sections gracefully degrade if an endpoint is unavailable' — important for interpreting partial results. It stops short of describing pagination, response shape, or latency, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is and what it returns, then when to use it, then a caveat about degradation. No filler. Slightly dense section enumeration in sentence one, but every clause carries information.

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?

For an aggregator with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, recommended call ordering, contents, and failure semantics. What is missing is any signal about result size or that the response is a composite envelope of sections, which would help an agent parse it without an output schema.

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% — siteId is fully documented in the schema, including the default-site fallback and the pointer to listSites. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('composite health snapshot — single call') and enumerates exactly what is aggregated: dashboard overview counts, internet/WAN status, client distribution, and active threats. This clearly differentiates it from narrower siblings such as getDashboardOverview or getGatewayHealth, which return only one of those sections.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this as the first call when checking if everything is working or when starting any troubleshooting session.' That is a strong positive routing rule, though it never names when to skip it in favor of the individual section tools (e.g., getDashboardOverview or getClientsDistribution) once the agent has drilled into a specific area.

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