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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by disclosing the structure of the response: it includes settings (languages, subscriptions, access) and the services with their UUIDs. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for the output. It doesn't contradict any annotations.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('One status page') and then lists the key elements returned. There is no fluff or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 that there is no output schema, the description must convey what the agent can expect in the response. It does so by naming the categories: settings (languages, subscriptions, access) and services with UUIDs, section by section. This gives a good high-level picture of the return structure. It could be more detailed (e.g., exact format), but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and outcome.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter 'uuid' with format 'sp_...' (coverage 100%). The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter itself; it only describes what the tool returns. Since the schema covers the parameter semantics completely, the 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 that this tool retrieves a single status page with its settings (languages, subscriptions, access) and the services it shows, section by section, with UUIDs. It uses the specific 'get' verb and distinguishes it from list_status_pages by emphasizing 'one' status page. The scope and return content are explicit.

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 provides clear context about what the tool returns (detailed settings and services for a single page), implying it should be used when you need the full details of a specific status page rather than a list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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