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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by noting that results are citable and have stable IDs suitable for the fetch tool, and that it searches the full scope of OutageDeck data. No contradiction with 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 two well-structured sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes concrete examples and an alternative tool without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a single parameter, a clear output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully equips an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool. The sibling comparison and citable-results hint complete the picture.

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 coverage is 100% and the input schema already describes the query parameter in detail with examples. The description adds some context about open-ended queries but does not materially extend parameter semantics beyond 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 clearly states the tool searches everything OutageDeck tracks, including providers and incident history, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from get_provider_status, a key sibling, and mentions the stable-id/fetch integration.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: use for open questions like 'who had outages last week' or 'find the GitHub Actions incident', and use get_provider_status when the question is only about one named vendor currently being down. This clearly differentiates from an important alternative.

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