Health check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results are filtered to non-healthy findings only, and the response includes recent warning/critical SEL events — telling the agent how to interpret an empty result. It doesn't mention latency of the full sweep (the schema notes storage is slower).

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the covered subsystems and ends with the returned output. No filler and nothing restated from the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content and does so: unhealthy findings plus recent SEL events. Minor gap — it doesn't state what an all-clear response looks like (e.g., empty list) or how long a full sweep takes, though the schema hints at the storage cost.

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%, so both parameters (recent_events, include_storage) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description gestures at the events portion ('most recent warning or critical events') but adds no semantics beyond the schema, so 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 and scope: check every subsystem (CPUs, memory, fans, temperatures, power supplies, voltages, storage) and return only unhealthy items plus recent SEL events. This clearly distinguishes it from the per-subsystem siblings (idrac_thermal, idrac_power, idrac_storage) which cover one area each.

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 unhealthy-only filter plus recent warning/critical events establishes a clear triage use case, and 'list only what is not healthy' implicitly steers an agent here rather than to full-inventory siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives like idrac_status or idrac_logs or stating when not to use it.

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