health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses cost (lightweight, no data endpoints), mechanism (builds client, obtains OAuth2 token via GreenLake SSO, reuses cached token), and failure semantics (degraded/error status, detail field, New Central reason first). This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation-free diagnostic.

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?

Information is front-loaded: purpose, then invocation timing, then cost/mechanism, then return contract. The enumeration of return keys is long but justified in the absence of an output schema, though a few parentheticals could be trimmed.

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?

Since no output schema exists, the description must document the return contract, and it does completely — every status key, its possible values, and the meaning of the degraded/misconfigured states. Paired with explicit invocation guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends its space on outputs instead of inventing parameter guidance.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and two concrete resources (server version, Aruba Central backend authentication), which no sibling tool covers. It also explicitly negates scope ('does NOT fetch APs, switches, clients, or any other data endpoint'), making it unmistakable against the data-listing siblings.

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?

It states exactly when to call it ('at session start (or after a tool-call timeout)') and why, plus what alternatives it is not meant to replace. The when/when-not pair is explicit rather than inferred.

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