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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that per-interval average response timings come back alongside the uptime/downtime percentages, but with an output schema present and the enum already listing the grouping values, the incremental behavioral disclosure is modest.

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?

Two sentences plus a docs reference; the core capability is front-loaded before the usage hint. Efficient, though the trailing documentation URL is the least essential element in an otherwise tightly written definition.

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 a rich schema and an output schema that defines the response shape, the description needs only to convey purpose and when to reach for it, which it does. The one real gap is that it never positions itself against the similar get_downtime sibling.

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 100%, including formats (YmdHis / ISO 8601), defaults ('now', 'seven days ago'), and the full group_by enum, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only echoes the date range and grouping concepts without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get uptime and downtime percentages for a monitor over a date range') and adds the grouping options and that average response timings are returned per interval. It is clear, but it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling get_downtime, which the agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

'Use this to answer how much downtime a site had' gives a concrete intent-based usage context, which is more than most tool descriptions offer. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives – notably it never says when to prefer get_downtime or get_check_summary over this tool.

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