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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the response is deliberately compact, the raw 24h probe list and scanner file list are omitted, and 'days' means the last 30 daily uptime rows. That truncation disclosure is exactly the kind of thing annotations cannot express; only the lack of any latency/limit framing keeps it from a 5.

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 payload content is front-loaded in the first clause and the caveats (what is dropped, what 'days' means, where to go for older incidents) follow in a compact trailing block. It is dense but every sentence carries information; only the run-on structure slightly hurts scanning.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does so thoroughly, including the deliberate omissions. The remaining gap is parameter format for 'site', which is the one thing an agent needs in order to call it correctly and is not covered anywhere else.

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 0% for the single required 'site' parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'for a site' and never clarifies whether the value is a domain name, a hostname, or an internal site ID, nor does it give a format example, which leaves ambiguity that could cause a failed call.

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 resource (site uptime/health) and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: status, response time, TLS/domain checks, open incidents, latest daily audit, and Malware Scanner roll-up. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_incidents by scope, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 explicitly routes paging through older incidents to get_incidents, which is a concrete alternative and condition. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over other site-inspection siblings such as check_url, check_domain, or verify_site, so the exclusion set is only partially covered.

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