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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the views, specifying the default history window, listing the history return fields, and noting that sample metadata is omitted.

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 compact and front-loads the key view information. The long enumeration of history return fields is somewhat redundant given the presence of an output schema, but the text remains efficient overall.

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 tool has annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, which reduces the description's burden. Still, it omits any explanation of endpoint_id and provides limited guidance on when to use this tool rather than its siblings, so it is only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains view values and the hours parameter for history, but it does not explain the required endpoint_id parameter at all, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 identifies the resource as check results and enumerates the three supported views (status, history, outages), which is enough to understand the tool's basic function. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as get_check, list_checks, or run_check, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage through the view enumeration and notes that history uses hours with a default of 24. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over get_check, run_check, or list_checks, nor does it explain when each view is appropriate beyond the brief parameter semantics.

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