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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive safety. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: the tool is public (no authentication required) and precisely what information is returned (operational/degraded state, affected tools, timestamps, ETA, resolved time). This exceeds what the annotations alone provide.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence front-loads the core purpose and follows with a compact colon-separated list of returned fields. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 properly shoulders the return-value burden by naming the key fields. It is slightly incomplete on the exact shape of incident history and no-incident behavior, but for a zero-parameter status tool it provides enough to call correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so no parameter-specific meaning is needed. The baseline of 4 applies because the description carries no param burden and the schema is trivially complete.

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 ('HYPERneobroker service state and incident history') and enumerates the exact fields returned (operational/degraded, affected tools, detected time, six-minute initial ETA, resolved time). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market_status or order-related getters.

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?

The description implies usage for checking service health and includes 'Public, no key' as an access context, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the selection mostly to inference.

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