Service Health

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context about what the tool returns: state, duration, likely explanations, and state changes, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 tight sentences carry the entire message: the first defines what the tool reveals, the second gives a concrete invocation scenario. No filler or redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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?

The description, rich parameter schema, and strong annotations together cover the tool's inputs, behavior, and a realistic use case. The output schema exists, and the no-match behavior is documented in the parameter descriptions, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 hostname, servicename, and hours all documented in the input schema. The description does not need to repeat parameter details and only lightly reinforces the time range via "recent state changes," so a 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 states the tool's exact scope: it reports on a single service's state, duration, likely cause, and recent changes. The use case "why is Backup on db01 critical" makes the purpose concrete and distinguishes it from estate-wide or host-level tools.

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 gives a clear usage scenario with a concrete example. It does not explicitly enumerate when to prefer sibling tools like get_host_health or explain_notification, but the single-service focus and example provide enough contextual guidance.

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