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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a total count, per-vendor details, and additionally lists vendors with a different status format when requested. No contradiction.

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 four sentences, each contributing unique information: scope, return value/use case, elsewere list, and filtering. It is a bit wordy but not redundant, earning a 4.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description is comprehensive: it covers what is returned, the purpose, the elsewere behavior, and filtering options. With good annotations and parameter descriptions, nothing essential 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description. The description only summarises 'Filter by category or search text', which adds minimal extra meaning over the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool returns a list of supported vendors with their lookup key, display name, category, and status hostname. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling statuspage_check by noting it confirms vendor names before calling that tool, avoiding guessing.

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 says to use this tool to confirm a vendor name before calling statuspage_check, and mentions filtering by category or search text. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and references an alternative tool.

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