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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful context by revealing the response includes acknowledgements, description, and root cause, but it does not mention behavior on not-found cases or other edge conditions. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and identifier before listing the returned fields. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only fetch tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the operation, the identifier, and the main returned content. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the listed fields, though it could mention not-found behavior or confirm the full object shape.

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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter, uuid, at 100% coverage with the description 'Outage UUID.' The tool description merely repeats 'by UUID' without adding format, source, or additional semantic detail, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a precisely bounded object ('a single outage') and identifier ('by UUID'), making the tool's scope unmistakable. It also lists the detail fields returned (acknowledgements, description, root cause), which clearly differentiates it from list_outages and get_outage_timeline.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for retrieving one specific outage when a UUID is known, which implicitly distinguishes it from list-style siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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