get_entity_health

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that data comes from Dynatrace and names two metrics, but says nothing about required credentials/connectivity, time window defaults, behavior when the entity name isn't found, or how many entities a name may match.

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 efficient sentence with the resource and metric examples front-loaded; nothing is wasted, though it is terse to the point of leaving gaps handled in other dimensions.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and two sample metrics but omits return shape, time range, and failure modes. Adequate as a minimum viable definition, not 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%, with both entity_name and entity_type documented and entity_type's allowed values enumerated in the schema. The description adds little beyond confirming the 'service/entity' scope; 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 ('Get') plus a specific resource ('Dynatrace health metrics') and names the concrete metrics returned (response time, error rate). It does not differentiate from the closely related sibling get_dynatrace_problems, so an agent must guess which Dynatrace tool to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_dynatrace_problems or the Kubernetes-level health tools (get_namespace_health, check_service_endpoints). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing.

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