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

With readOnlyHint already covering safety, the description still adds substantial behavioral context: retention windows (pings kept 15 days, uptime over 30 days), result-set caps (last 20 pings, last 10 incidents), and semantic definitions of the 'start' and 'fail' ping statuses. That is exactly the kind of return-shape detail annotations cannot 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The enumerated return contents are front-loaded and the use-case clause closes with a quoted user question, making intent instantly scannable despite the density.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract — and it does, listing every section of the response plus retention and cardinality limits. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% and the single uuid parameter is already richly documented there (hc_/tok_ forms and exact name). The description adds no further parameter guidance, so it sits at the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('one healthcheck in detail') and then enumerates the exact payload: schedule, grace, state and timing, escalation policy, 30-day uptime/downtime, last 20 pings, last 10 incidents. This is clearly distinguishable from list_healthchecks (collection) and get_monitor (monitors vs. healthchecks).

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 gives explicit triggering questions ('did my cron run?' / 'why is it down?') and names the related tools get_outage and get_outage_timeline that consume the hco_ uuids it returns. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming list_healthchecks as the way to obtain the uuid, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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