Find Hosts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it yields counts per state and, for unreachable hosts, explicitly names the down hosts they sit behind. This is useful non-obvious behavior that helps the agent interpret results. The only minor gap is that pagination/limit semantics are left to the schema, but that is already documented.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose and the counting/ unreachable behavior, the second gives the canonical question forms, and the third routes to the sibling. The description is front-loaded and 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 7-parameter, all-optional filtering tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the purpose, typical use cases, and key behavioral quirk (unreachable hosts naming down hosts). Return-value details are handled by the output schema, and parameter details are fully in the input schema. No essential guidance for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so every parameter is already meaningfully documented with types, defaults, and exact descriptions (e.g., 'Part of the host name. Empty: any name.'). The tool description adds little to parameter-level semantics beyond the global behavior of counts and unreachable-host handling, which is consistent with the schema. Thus the baseline 3 applies, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('hosts') and details the filtering dimensions (name, state, container, host group) and the counting behavior. It clearly differentiates from get_host_health by naming the sibling tool and the scenario that selects it, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly gives the intended use cases ('which hosts are down' or 'how many hosts does tenant X have') and names the alternative for a different scenario ('For how one known host is doing, use get_host_health'). This provides clear when/ when-not guidance and a sibling pointer, leaving little to inference.

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