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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does mention a key requirement, indicating an authentication need. It also implies read-only behavior by referring to 'recorded outages', but it does not disclose response format, pagination, or behavior when the optional registry parameter is omitted.

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 single concise sentence plus a URL, with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though brevity leaves out important parameter details.

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 tool with one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to enable confident invocation. It does not explain how to use the registry parameter or what the output will look like.

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?

The schema has a single optional parameter 'registry' with zero description coverage. The tool description provides no explanation of acceptable values, whether it's a filter or required input, or what happens when omitted.

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 clearly identifies the resource (package registries) and the nature of the data (recorded outages), distinguishing it from sibling tool provider_incidents which likely covers package providers. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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 phrase 'kept after their status pages drop them' implies a use case for retrieving historical outage data beyond live status pages. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like provider_incidents, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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