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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that statuses are from a snapshot (not live), can be up to a day old, and instructs checking monitorCheckedAt. It also implies a read-only operation. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't mention rate limits or auth (which may not be relevant).

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states purpose and filter, the second adds a critical staleness caveat and a direct pointer to a sibling tool. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

Given two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics: what is returned (list of monitored APIs), the filter, and the staleness warning with the monitorCheckedAt field mention. It doesn't address pagination explicitly, but the limit parameter handles that implicitly. Overall, enough for an agent to call 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% for both parameters. The description only restates the category filter ('optionally filtered by category') and doesn't add detail about limit or value formats. Per rubric, baseline 3 applies since the schema already documents both parameters adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('APIs and developer platforms this service monitors'), and clarifies the optional category filter. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_api_status' (which fetches a single status) and 'list_down_apis' (which filters to down APIs), even without naming them.

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 directs the caller to use 'get_api_status' when real-time status is needed, which is a clear alternative. However, it does not mention when to choose this over other list/search siblings (e.g., search_apis, list_down_apis), so guidance is partial but not misleading.

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