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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the returned content (status, 24h up/down percentage), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about pagination, result size limits, or behavior for unknown logIds.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Every clause (list, scope, payload summary) 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?

For a single-parameter read tool whose annotations already establish safety and idempotency, the description covers what is returned, which matters because no output schema exists. Missing only edge-case behavior (empty results, invalid logId, pagination), so it is nearly 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 100% (logId is documented as the log's Guid), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description only restates "for a log" and adds no format, validation, or error semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 is correct here.

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 ("Get a list of all uptime checks for a log") and even previews the payload (current status, 24h up/down percentage). The list-vs-details split with uptime_get_details is implied by the wording but never named explicitly, so it falls just 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 scope ("for a log") implies when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the natural alternative, uptime_get_details, for per-check questions. Adequate but gap-laden.

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