get_all_sites_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only operation.' It adds behavioral detail beyond the annotation by stating the tool walks each site and returns a compact health snapshot per site including status, score, and key counts, which is useful context not present in the schema or annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, a compact comparison paragraph that routes to alternatives, and a minimal Args section. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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 one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key gaps an agent needs: return shape, scope, relationship to sibling tools, and usage guidance. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; the single optional 'device' parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Optional console/device name to target a specific UniFi console; omit to use the default.' The description repeats this guidance but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return a health overview for every site managed by one UniFi console.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_global_health and get_site_health and explaining the scope difference: all sites within one console versus one site or cross-console aggregation.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance with alternatives: use get_global_health for cross-console aggregation, prefer get_site_health for full per-subsystem detail of a single named site. This directly tells the agent how to route among the most similar sibling tools.

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