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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by explaining that a service can be 'operational but working from evidence older than its freshness target' and that this is 'reported rather than hidden' – behavioral context the agent would not get from annotations alone.

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 tight sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, then the usage condition, then the parameter guidance – a logical order.

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?

Complete enough for a read-only, single-param tool. The freshness/staleness distinction is the key non-obvious concept and it is captured. No output schema exists, but the description explains what is reported (availability and freshness), so no critical gap remains.

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 serviceId parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the omit-vs-pass semantics for the platform summary vs single-service record, matching the schema baseline.

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+resource: reporting per-service availability and data freshness. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like edge_get_service (a lookup) and edge_list_products (enumeration), since this tool's job is health/probe status.

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 a concrete when-to-use condition ('call this when a purchase matters and staleness would change the decision') and explains the operational-but-stale distinction. It doesn't name an explicit alternative sibling, but the context is specific enough to guide invocation.

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