get_service_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists metric types returned. It does not state that it is a read-only operation, mention authentication or rate limits, or clarify whether data is aggregated over the time range or returned as a time series.

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 two sentences long with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, while the second adds a use case, making every sentence meaningful.

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 moderate complexity with four parameters and no output schema or annotations. Although the description lists the health metrics returned, it does not explain the response structure (e.g., snapshot vs. time series) or behavior over time ranges, leaving notable gaps for an agent.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The mention of latency, error rate, and throughput adds context, but it does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'health metrics for a service', listing concrete metrics like latency, error rate, and throughput. It is clear and specific but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as query_metrics or get_monitor_status.

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 phrase 'Useful for monitoring service performance and health status' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, such as query_metrics for broader metric analysis.

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