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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the call is free, data comes from ToolVet's own checks (source of truth), and staleness is disclosed via the 'unknown when not checked yet' state. It stops short of stating caching or refresh cadence.

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?

The answer is front-loaded: 'Free' and the framing question come first, followed by the fields returned. It is a single dense sentence with no wasted preamble, though the enumerated uptime windows make the tail slightly list-like rather than tightly structured.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so well by enumerating state, timestamps, uptime windows, and outages. For a one-parameter, read-only tool it is essentially complete; minor gaps like refresh cadence or error behavior when the id is unknown are unaddressed.

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% — the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Service id (slug)'. The description only weakly reinforces this by saying 'a listed service', implying the id must be one that exists in the listing, but adds no format or lookup guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the work.

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 precise verb+resource — retrieving the current status of a listed service from ToolVet's own checks — and enumerates what 'status' concretely means (state, since when, latest check, uptime over 24h/7d/30d, recent outages). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_service or get_service_report even without naming them, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing question 'Is a listed service up right now?' and by 'Free', which signals a low-cost call worth making before heavier operations like preflight_check or get_service_report. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no stated alternative for deeper reporting, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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