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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: sorting order, real-usage outcome data source, and timeliness relative to status pages. It still does not explain return fields or any rate limits.

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 efficiently packed sentences: purpose and ordering first, then usage guidance, then data-source credibility. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It clearly conveys what is listed, how results are ordered, when to use it, and the data basis behind it.

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% for the single optional limit parameter, which documents the default of 25. The description adds no additional meaning about the limit parameter or filtering beyond what the schema already provides.

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: list tools whose real-world success rate dropped sharply, with active outages/regressions and a newest-and-most-severe ordering. This is distinct from siblings like check_tool_reliability or discover_tools because it focuses on breakages rather than general discovery or per-tool checks.

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 when to call it: to steer away from currently broken tools, or to monitor health of tools a task depends on. It does not provide when-not guidance or name alternative sibling tools for those cases.

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