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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description is consistent. It adds valuable behavioral context: curated vendor coverage, per-incident fields returned, unresolved_only filtering, and status_host override semantics. No contradictions.

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 one dense paragraph but front-loads the primary purpose and packs in return-field details, filtering options, and the curated vendor scope without redundant filler. Slightly long but every sentence adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (title, lifecycle status, impact level, timestamps, duration, affected components, latest update) and parameter behavior. It covers the tool's scope and edge cases like status_host sufficiently for an agent to select and invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to explain every parameter. It adds context for status_host ('vendors outside the curated map') and unresolved_only, but mostly reinforces the schema's own descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3.

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?

Description clearly identifies the resource as 'Incident and outage history for a vendor's status page' and elaborates what is returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like statuspage_check or statuspage_multi_check by focusing on historical incidents and outage timelines.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for outage history, past downtime, current incidents and postmortem timelines' and instructs when to use status_host for vendors outside the curated map. It doesn't name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but provides clear usage context.

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