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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent=false), but the description adds real semantic context beyond them: it defines what 'downtime minutes' and 'degraded minutes' mean, notes that unmeasured time is reported as unknown, and lists certificate/domain expiry as part of the payload. It stops short of mentioning any limits on compute time for large windows, but the data-semantics disclosure is well above the bar.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the usage condition and the sibling exclusion last, and nearly every clause carries information. However, it is delivered as one long run-on sentence with a dense middle enumeration of return fields that would be easier to scan as a list.

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 and six parameters, the description steps up by enumerating the returned metrics and the per-site extra breakdown, so the agent can predict results. The remaining gap is that conditional parameter requirements (e.g. 'site' being needed when scope=site, 'group' when scope=group) are only implied via the schema descriptions rather than restated here.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful mapping: 'range' is glossed as week/month/quarter, 'group' is defined domain-specifically as 'an agency's client', and scope is tied to the report's coverage. It does not explain the precedence or interaction between range and from/to beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('get an uptime, SLA or incident report') and enumerates the three scopes (site, group, whole account) plus the time granularities. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_incident or list_incidents, which cover single incidents rather than aggregate reporting.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when the user wants...') and closes with an explicit exclusion plus the alternative to use instead ('Not for the latest checks: use get_monitor_history'). The agent knows both when to pick this tool and when to route elsewhere.

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