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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's addition of 'trailing probe history' and 'raw probe points' provides useful context about the data returned without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences with no filler: first sentence states purpose and context, second lists output structure. Every word earns its place.

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 covers return types. All 3 parameters are documented. Context about the 'badge' provides real-world relevance. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or data freshness.

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 all parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional input semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 'trailing probe history for one server plus a daily uptime sparkline', specifying the resource (server uptime history) and action (get). It differentiates from siblings like get_server_status (current) and list_server_incidents (events) by focusing on historical uptime data.

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 description implies usage for checking uptime history ('the reliability signal behind the badge') and mentions output types, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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