get_aria_health

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 — and the description clears it easily. It decodes the assessment enum, explains that OFFLINE on overall_status reflects any single stopped service and is not itself an outage, and states that a 503 is reported rather than raised — behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations or 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?

Front-loads the [READ] verb and scope, then dense decision-relevant detail — enum meanings, the OFFLINE caveat, error handling, staleness pointer. With no output schema, the enumeration of return fields is load-bearing rather than redundant, so every 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so (assessment values, overall_status semantics, services fields, version fields). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented single parameter, 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?

Only one parameter (target) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about target format or fallback behavior beyond what the schema's own description provides; 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?

States a specific verb and resource: check Aria Operations platform health, per service, plus version. This is clearly distinguished from the sibling get_resource_health (per-resource) without needing to open either schema, and 'per service' / 'plus its version' pins the scope precisely.

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?

Gives two concrete routing rules: check product_line before assuming 9.x-only tools (fleet_*, list_findings, promql_query) exist, and if HEALTHY but data looks stale, check list_collector_groups. These name alternatives and their triggering conditions, but there is no explicit 'when not to use this tool' or comparison against the sibling get_resource_health.

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