Impact

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: that a non-matching hostname yields pointers to discovery tools, which is a behavioral nuance not captured in annotations. No contradiction.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and usage context. Every clause serves a purpose—no filler, no redundancy. It efficiently conveys both what and when.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema present, safe annotations), the description covers the essential points: what it returns, when to use it, and behavior on unknown host. Minor gaps like pagination or result format are covered by the output schema. No critical information 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds interpretative context about the tool's output (services, hosts, groups, maps, reports) but doesn't enhance parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 identifies a specific purpose: retrieving what a host or service carries (its services, dependent hosts, groups, maps, reports) and explicitly frames it as impact analysis for changes. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that focus on diagnostics, metrics, or configuration.

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 states when to use it ('before you disable, delete or take it out of the monitoring') and signals that for unknown hostnames it returns tools to find the correct one. It doesn't name specific alternatives, but provides enough context to guide the agent on appropriate invocation.

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