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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which broadly cover safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining what the data can reveal (e.g., 'shape of a problem', outage clustering), which goes beyond the annotations. For a read-only analytics tool, this is sufficient transparency, though it doesn't detail pagination or row limits (which are partially covered by the schema and output 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?

The description is a compact three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and metrics, then usage hints and alternative. Every sentence adds value, with no filler. It meets the standard of '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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, 1 required), full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, and alternatives, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 all 4 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds a high-level note about the time range ('hour' granularity, 'days' as best) but does not elaborate on parameter formats or interactions beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('response time and uptime for one monitor broken down by hour'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_stats_daily. It also enumerates the metrics (min, max, average, p95) and the time granularity, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('Best over hours or days') and when not to ('for weeks and months use get_stats_daily instead'), naming the alternative tool. This is a model of clear usage guidance, providing both context and exclusion.

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