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

Annotations already cover idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds key behavioral insights: it stops repeat alerts, but escalation steps still fire on schedule. This goes beyond annotations to explain side effects, which is valuable for the agent.

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 with no fluff. The key action is front-loaded, and the caveat about escalations is placed right after. 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 simple 1-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and the behavioral detail provided, nothing essential is missing. It clearly tells when to use and what to expect.

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% with a single 'uuid' parameter described as 'Outage UUID from list_outages.' The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond that, but since coverage is full, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('mark as handled') and the resource ('ongoing outage'), and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_outage by noting that escalation steps still fire. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 explains when to use this tool: when an outage is being handled but not yet resolved. It also contrasts with resolve_outage, as it mentions that resolving or fixing the cause stops escalations, implying resolve_outage is for that. This gives clear context and route.

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