Problem Overview

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral value by explaining that the tool distinguishes root causes from consequences and includes already-acknowledged/downtime items in its overview, which is not visible in annotations or schema.

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?

Two sentences carry the full meaning: the first packs the tool's output categories, the second gives the intended use case. No filler or repetition of schema details; the most important guidance is front-loaded.

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 read-only overview tool with an output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description covers what it does and when to use it. It does not explain how the parameters shape grouping or filtering, but the schema and output schema fill the remaining operational gaps.

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?

The input schema describes all three parameters (groups, container, hostgroup) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but with full schema coverage, the baseline 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 names the tool's function with a specific verb phrase ('What is broken') and enumerates the exact categories it returns: down hosts, unreachable hosts/services, unhandled service problems, and acknowledged/downtime items. This clearly distinguishes it from more targeted siblings like get_host_health or investigate_problem.

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 gives a usage directive: 'Use it first for "what is broken" or "give me an overview".' This establishes when to call it, though it does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the 'first' framing.

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