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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-open world. The description adds behavioral details: incidents are reconstructed, ordered newest first, include start/end/duration/reason. No contradictions; adds useful context beyond 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 concise sentences. First sentence defines output structure and ordering. Second explains filtering. Every word adds value; no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 no output schema, the description covers incident structure (start, end, duration, failure reason) and ordering. Filtering options are explained. For a list tool with 3 optional params, this is complete and informative.

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% with good descriptions for all three parameters. The description restates filtering options but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides clear parameter meaning.

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 lists 'Reconstructed outage incidents' and specifies they are 'contiguous runs of failed probes' across the catalog. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on incidents rather than stats or server status. Filtering options differentiate it further.

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 explains when to use the tool by specifying filtering by server slug or status ('ongoing'). It implies usage for examining outage incidents but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings. Clear enough for most contexts.

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