cvcue_network_health

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the metric categories and the child-location breakout, implying a read-only analytics call, but never states permissions, whether results are live vs. aggregated over the look-back window, or how large the response may be.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the metric families as a compact list. Dense but readable; the trailing dashboard reference is mildly decorative rather than informative.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must stand alone, and it does cover what data comes back at a category level. Missing is the default scope when location_id is null and any hint of result shape or aggregation, which an agent would want before calling a metrics endpoint.

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%, so ssid, hours, and location_id are already documented, including the note that children are broken out. The description adds scope framing (location plus children) but no new meaning for any parameter, so baseline 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?

Names the resource (network health metrics) and its scope (a location plus each child location), and enumerates the metric families covered: connectivity, performance, application experience, infrastructure. That is more specific than the sibling health tools (cvcue_ap_health_summary, cvcue_client_health_summary), though it never explicitly says how it differs from them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the location-level rollup to call when it wants broad health across a site and its children. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of when to prefer the AP- or client-level health siblings, and no prerequisites stated.

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