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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses real behavioral traits: the target section is created at the end if no section matches, existing services are not moved, and healthchecks show an uptime bar but never response times. This is useful side-effect context that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the non-obvious scoping and healthcheck behaviors. No wasted text.

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 full parameter documentation, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, including the section-creation side effect and existing-service behavior. Auth requirements or partial-failure behavior for a list of up to 100 services are not addressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents uuid, section, services, show_uptime and show_response_times. The description restates much of this (section default, healthcheck uptime/no response times) without adding format or syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific action and resource: showing monitors, healthchecks, components or servers on a status page. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling remove_status_page_services and from the various list_*/get_* tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the effect ('show X on a status page') and the note that existing services stay put, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs an alternative or any stated prerequisites/permissions. The agent must infer context from the name and siblings.

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