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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the visibility scope, the deletion exclusion, the input validation rule ('a from/to that is not ISO 8601 is refused'), and the required permission. It also describes the per-entity outageSummary content an agent will receive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and result shape, then scope, then validation, then sibling routing, then permissions. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

Despite an output schema existing (so return details are not strictly required), the description still explains the outageSummary structure and insight format, and covers scope, auth, validation, and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 three params with their defaults are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by specifying the ISO 8601 validation behavior and the default window semantics (30 days unless the workspace changed it), though it does not restate per-param syntax.

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+resource ('Uptime/SLA summary for a time window') and immediately enumerates the output shape: online % per screen, downtime windows with causes, worst offenders first. It is unmistakable against siblings like screen_health and get_proof_of_play, which it names directly.

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?

Routes the agent with explicit alternatives and the condition that selects each: 'screen_health (view outages) for one screen's outage list, list_open_alerts for what is wrong right now, get_proof_of_play for what actually played.' It also states scope ('screens in locations you can see; deleted screens are left out') and the required scope 'screen.view'.

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