get_site_health

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

The description explicitly labels the operation as read-only, consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation by describing the returned per-subsystem health contents. No side effects are mentioned, but for a read-only health query this is sufficient.

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 opening sentences are tight, front-loaded, and informative, with zero fluff. The Args section duplicates the schema verbatim, which is slightly redundant, but the overall length is justified and well organized.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, return contents, parameters, and key alternatives, which is complete for a low-complexity read-only tool without an output schema. It does not fully enumerate every related sibling, but the most relevant routing guidance is present.

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%, and the description's Args section essentially repeats the schema's parameter documentation. It adds no new meaning beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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: 'Get comprehensive health status for a site.' It further specifies the per-subsystem contents (WAN/LAN/WLAN status, score, device/user counts), and distinguishes itself from similar siblings by naming get_network_health and get_global_health. This makes the tool's role immediately clear.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to choose alternatives: use get_network_health for a lighter summary, or get_global_health across consoles. It also clarifies the optional device parameter and the site default, leaving no ambiguity about invocation context.

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