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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real substance: it discloses the data source and the three distinct computations (share of time free of major outages, strict uptime counting partial outages as downtime, total impaired durations). That interpretation of partial outages as downtime is behavior an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leads with the resource and scope, then adds the metric definitions without a wasted word. Dense but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the three uptime metrics returned. Combined with annotations covering safety and 100% parameter coverage, an agent has nearly everything needed; only the exact response shape/naming remains unspecified.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 7-90 day bounds and default of 30. The description repeats the window range but adds no new syntax, format guidance, or semantics for the provider slug/name/product-name resolution. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — an independent uptime record for one provider over a trailing window — and pins down the exact measurement basis (OutageDeck's readings of the official status source). It implicitly separates itself from snapshot siblings like get_provider_status by emphasizing a historical window, but it never names the sibling it differs from.

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 only implied: the trailing-window framing suggests asking for history rather than a current snapshot, and the 7-90 day range hints at bounded historical queries. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many siblings (get_provider_status, get_outage_report, get_incident_details).

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