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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description still adds substantial context beyond them: two retention tiers, the exclusion of unknown input/auth/rate-limit observations from uptime denominators, and an explicit scoping caveat that this is configuration/reachability evidence rather than paid-delivery proof. It omits pagination mechanics (how the cursor terminates) and output shape, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then escalating to retention and semantic caveats. Each sentence carries non-redundant information; only 'Never signs payments' feels marginally tangential for a read-only history tool, though it is a useful security signal.

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?

With 7 parameters, no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description should explain the paging and time-window parameters it does not cover. It handles semantics and retention well but leaves an agent unable to determine what `since` and `route_id` mean or how to page correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, and the description only implicitly covers the `series` values by naming uptime, latency and price. It says nothing about `since`, `limit`, `cursor`, or especially `route_id`, which is a patterned identifier whose purpose is entirely undocumented anywhere.

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: paging through uptime, latency or observed price history for one listing, which maps directly onto the `series` enum. It also bounds the tool's meaning ('not paid-delivery proof'), but it never names a sibling such as retrieve_health_checks or retrieve_listing to distinguish itself explicitly.

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 retention sentence ('raw history retains 30 days; UTC daily aggregates are retained indefinitely') gives implicit guidance on choosing the `interval` value for older windows, and the evidence caveat hints at when the output is appropriate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative tool for overlapping data.

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