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). The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: reverse-chronological ordering and page-at-a-time pagination. However, it omits page size, how to detect that more pages exist, and what an incident record actually contains beyond 'causes'.

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 short fragment with zero filler, and the ordering and pagination facts are front-loaded. It is efficient, though its terseness means a couple of clarifying clauses could have been added without bloat.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate as far as it goes. With no output schema, it should say more about the shape of an incident entry (timing, duration, resolution) and whether an empty page signals the end of results.

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, including the cursor semantics of 'before'. The description's 'newest first, a page at a time' reinforces why the cursor walks backwards, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource precisely ('Outages with their causes') and adds scope details (newest first, paginated). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_uptime, leaving the agent to infer which one to call when.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_uptime. The paginated framing implies iterative paging, but nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice over its closest sibling.

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