zabbix_hosts

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: matching is a case-insensitive substring over both technical and visible name, exact matches rank first, and name-guessing is the common cause of empty results. It does not cover truncation/pagination behavior itself, leaving that to the schema.

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?

Three short paragraphs, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded, matching semantics second, and routing last. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, alternatives, and match semantics, and the truncation-reporting behavior is carried by the limit parameter's schema text. For a 4-param read tool this is nearly complete; only an explicit note on return shape or default result ordering when no search is given is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: how the search string is interpreted (case-insensitive substring across both name fields) and result ordering. It adds no detail on group, limit, or monitored beyond the schema, so it is a modest improvement over baseline rather than a full one.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (Find) and resource (hosts) plus the matching modes (name fragment, pattern, group). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like zabbix_host_status and zabbix_host_investigate, which the description explicitly routes to.

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 use the tool ('the user is looking for a host and does not have its exact name, or wants the hosts in a group') and names two alternatives with their selecting conditions: zabbix_host_status for a short health check of one host, zabbix_host_investigate for a full diagnostic snapshot.

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