Summarize MCP runtime health and alert recommendations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds little behavioral context beyond the API path and auth class. It does not disclose potential error states or edge cases.

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 concise, with two sentences. It efficiently states the purpose and includes the API operation details without extraneous text.

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?

Despite having an output schema and good annotations, the description lacks context about what constitutes runtime health, what alert recommendations entail, and how to interpret the results. More detail would improve completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter (companyId). The tool description does not explain what companyId is or how to obtain it, failing to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states the tool summarizes MCP runtime health and alert recommendations. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like pc_get_health which is a general health check.

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 provides the API path and authorization class but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or how it relates to other health-related tools.

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