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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is established. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: times are UTC, results are newest-first, and the downtime total is scoped only to the returned subset, which can mislead if the limit is small.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by the caveat that matters most. Nothing is padding; the docs link is a reasonable trailing pointer.

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 an output schema present, return-value shape needn't be described, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description is nearly complete for this read tool. Only the lack of explicit sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description goes beyond it by clarifying the interaction between limit and the aggregate total, plus the UTC convention for the time filters, which is the kind of nuance the schema does not spell out.

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: list the outages recorded for a monitor, with start/end times. It implicitly separates itself from get_uptime_statistics and get_maintenance_periods by being about outages, but it never names or contrasts those siblings 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?

It gives real operational guidance about the limit ('returns the most recent outages up to the limit you set... widen the limit before drawing conclusions'), which is useful when-to-use behavior. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_uptime_statistics or get_maintenance_periods, leaving tool selection to inference.

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