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

The description adds the ordering ('newest first') and the use case, which is useful context beyond annotations. Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false). However, the description does not mention pagination behavior (limit parameter handling), rate limits, or whether all historical data is retained beyond the days parameter. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core output description and then the usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the return values contain beyond the ordering. It mentions 'individual check results' and 'patterns' but does not specify the fields or structure of a check result. For a tool that returns potentially large datasets, more detail on pagination or result shape would be helpful. The annotations cover the safety profile, and the description is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to confidently call it and interpret results.

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 67%, with 'days' and 'limit' having descriptions ('Default 7.' and 'Default 50.'). The description does not add any parameter details beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema provides partial coverage.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'individual check results for a service over the last days, newest first', which is a specific verb+resource and indicates the ordering. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_report or get_stats, but the specificity of 'individual check results' helps the agent understand it's a detailed drill-down.

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 provides clear context: 'Use it to see patterns (intermittent failures, slowdowns) behind the summary figures.' This implies when to use it versus summary tools like get_report or get_stats, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly or state when not to use it.

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