check_service_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the concrete check performed (readiness of backends) which is a real behavioral trait, but leaves unstated whether it returns a list versus an error, severity classification, and whether it is cluster-wide or namespace-scoped by default.

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 sentence with the core action front-loaded followed by the specific detection condition. Zero filler; every clause earns its place.

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 a simple two-parameter read-only diagnostic with fully documented params, the description covers the core intent. With no annotations and no output schema, it should still say what a result looks like (per-service readiness status, list of unhealthy services) to be complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds nothing about the parameters — it does not mention the namespace default or the all-services-when-omitted behavior. Since the schema already documents both, the description neither compensates nor adds meaning; slightly below baseline.

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 resource ("check service endpoints") and sharpens it with the exact condition detected: services with no ready backends. It is clearly distinct from siblings like find_orphaned_services or trace_service_to_pods, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated failure mode (detecting zero-ready-backend services), so an agent can infer when the tool matters. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to the closely related trace_service_to_pods or get_namespace_health.

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