site-health-timeline

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds context: it is a snapshot over a lookback window, includes multiple data points, and surfaces caveats about partial data and API limitations, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 (two sentences plus a parenthetical), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without waste.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a high-level idea of returned fields (devices, stability scores, etc.) and notes caveats. It is fairly complete for agent understanding, though more detail on output structure would be beneficial.

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 baseline 3 is appropriate. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'lookback window' but the schema already describes 'lookbackDays'.

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 it provides a 'per-site health snapshot' with specific metrics (stability scores, reboots, WAN uptime, optional client count), distinguishing it from siblings that focus on individual metrics like 'detect-recent-reboots' or 'wan-uptime-trend'.

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 mentions it 'replaces 5+ sequential calls', guiding the agent to use it when a combined snapshot is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., for a single metric) or exclude edge cases.

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