health_check

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 by revealing that this tool performs multiple internal steps (device resolution, health scoring, anomaly detection, alert checking, availability calculation) and consolidates them into one report, which is more informative than the tool name alone.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the key term 'Composite health check' and then lists the essential sub-operations in sequence. Every phrase adds information; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 composite tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the overall behavior and return type ('single device health report') well. It names the kinds of data computed (health, anomalies, alerts, availability), which is sufficient context for selection. Minor gaps remain around the exact output structure, but the full schema covers parameters and defaults.

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 the input schema fully documents all four parameters, including defaults, the device_name fallback, and the WATSONX_API_KEY requirement for summarize. The description adds only a vague 'resolves a device' hint, not parameter-level usage detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the weight.

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 clearly identifies a composite health-check operation with a specific verb and resource ('returns a single device health report'), and enumerates its component actions: resolving a device, scoring health across datasources, detecting anomalies, checking alerts, and calculating availability. The word 'Composite' plus this list differentiates it from the many single-purpose siblings like get_alerts, score_device_health, and calculate_availability.

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 implies when to use the tool—when an overall device health report is desired rather than a focused sub-check—but it never explicitly states alternatives or exclusions. There is no 'use X instead for Y' guidance, so the agent must infer usage from the word 'Composite' and the listed sub-operations.

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