get_healthcheck

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source for side-effect and return behavior. 'Get details' implies a read-only retrieval, but it does not state that explicitly, does not describe the response, and discloses no edge cases or auth requirements.

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 concise sentence and front-loads the action and object. It contains no filler, though it is too terse to earn a 5.

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 simple 2-parameter getter with complete schema coverage, the description minimally suffices. However, with no output schema it does not describe what 'details' means, and it does not clarify zone scoping or the relationship to the healthcheck list operation.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'a healthcheck', making it clear that this is a single-object retrieval rather than a list operation. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_endpoint_healthcheck, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this instead of list_healthchecks or get_endpoint_healthcheck. The agent must infer from the 'get' verb and the healthcheck_id parameter that this is the by-ID detail fetch, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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