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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: the default window when no period is supplied, that each point carries a freshness-in-seconds field, and that an aggregate uptime percent is included. It stops short of noting pagination, point density, or rate limits, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the diagnostic use case, then the sibling routing. Every clause carries distinct information with no padding.

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 optional enum parameter with an output schema present, the description covers what is needed: scope, default window, and when to prefer siblings. Nothing required for a correct call is missing.

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% and the single enum parameter already documents '24h' (default) and '7d'. The description's restatement of the default window adds confirmation but no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ironflow's own uptime over the last 24 hours (default) or 7 days') and enumerates the payload (status points, data freshness in seconds, overall uptime percent). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings, get_status and get_status_metrics.

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?

Gives a concrete diagnostic trigger: 'Use it to check whether a gap or odd value in other results came from an Ironflow outage.' It then routes the agent away with explicit alternatives — get_status for current status, get_status_metrics for latency and error rates — each with the condition that selects it.

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