service_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload spans three related entity types (container, proxy hosts, DNS records), which is useful framing beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about scoping behavior, empty results, or what open-world lookups it performs.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the core idea and enumerates the three data sources. It wastes no words, though brevity comes partly from omitting information that matters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be restated. However, a composite lookup tool with three fully undocumented parameters and no sibling differentiation leaves key decisions (which id to pass, what happens when domain is blank) unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions the three parameters. The phrases 'the container', 'the domain', and 'its DNS records' loosely hint at container_name, domain, and dns_zone_id, but nothing explains optionality, defaults, or how domain/dns_zone_id narrow the aggregate.

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 says it is an aggregated view of a service comprising the container, proxy hosts, and DNS records, which conveys the resource. But 'One view of a service' is noun-only, with no verb identifying this as a read/lookup, and nothing distinguishes it from infrastructure_overview or homelab_health.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this composite view versus querying docker_containers, proxy_hosts, and dns_records separately, and no guidance on when to prefer infrastructure_overview. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely.

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