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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no safety disclosure is needed from the description. The description adds aggregation and grouping behavior, but does not mention rate limits, return shape, or SLA calculation details. This is acceptable given the annotations, but the description itself adds only modest behavioral context.

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?

One 13-word sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs the optional grouping into a compact clause. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The schema covers all four optional parameters with defaults, enum values, and batching/rate-limit guidance, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The description states the output metric and grouping options, which is sufficient given the simple return value. The main omission is explicit sibling routing, but that is already scored under usage_guidelines.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'date window' and 'per day/hour/week/month' loosely map to from/to and resolution, but add no meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions and defaults. It does not mention monitor_uuids, which the schema documents thoroughly.

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 metric (uptime percentage) over a date window, and the title adds 'SLA stats.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling monitor tools like get_monitor_response_time or get_monitor_outages. The optional grouping by day/hour/week/month further clarifies scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_monitor_response_time or get_monitor_mttr. The only usage hint (batching monitors in one call) lives in the monitor_uuids parameter schema, not in the tool description. An agent must infer selection from the title and metric name.

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