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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds useful auth context by noting it works with mcp:read tokens. It also discloses that include adds lists alongside page fields and that incidents can be filtered by state and active, though it does not mention rate limits or error behavior beyond the 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 front-loaded with the primary action and then explains the optional embedding and include behavior. It is appropriately sized for a six-parameter tool, though the phrase 'and return it' is slightly redundant and the include enumeration is dense.

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 rich annotations, full schema description coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description supplies enough context about retrieval scope, optional includes, and sibling alternatives. An agent has what it needs 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 the schema already documents all six parameters, including with, include, state, active, identifier, and sectionIdentifier. The description restates the main parameter interactions but adds little beyond the structured field descriptions, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch one status page by UID or slug. It also distinguishes this retrieval tool from list_status_pages and the manage_* mutation tools, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly routes browsing to list_status_pages and changes to manage_status_page_section, _resource, and _incident. It also explains when to use with=sections versus include lists, leaving little ambiguity about alternatives.

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