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

Annotations already declare it a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds genuine context: default sort is newest first, and it enumerates the returned fields (su, rt, m, sc, s, l), which is useful for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Front-loads what gets returned, then covers bounding rules and the endpoint, with little waste. The field-abbreviation list is dense but directly informative for a tool lacking an output schema.

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 compensates by describing the result fields and the sorting order, and it covers the range-bounding parameters. Complete enough for correct invocation, though it stops short of sibling routing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: span is in hours, while start/end accept ms epoch, ISO 8601, or RFC 2822 and are GMT unless a zone is given.

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+resource: retrieving the raw results of a check, and names the underlying endpoint (GET /results/{id}). It is clearly distinguishable from summary/uptime siblings in spirit, but never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

Explains how to bound the query (span vs start/end), which implies usage, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over nodeping_get_check_events, nodeping_get_check_summary, or nodeping_get_check_uptime.

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