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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the concrete HTTP method/path (GET /status_pages/{subdomain}/summary) and the exact response shape, listing all top-level fields. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying what the summary contains, though it does not discuss authentication or 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the operation, emphasizes scope, lists the returned fields, and provides the endpoint. Every piece of information earns its place, and there is no 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 summary tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the endpoint, enumerates the response fields, and the schema handles the parameter meaning. Nothing needed to correctly invoke the tool is missing.

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?

The schema already covers the single optional parameter at 100% and explains that it overrides STATUSPAL_SUBDOMAIN. The description only references the parameter in the endpoint path and adds no additional semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('status-page summary') and enumerates exactly what is returned, including status_page, services[], incidents[], and current_status_type. The capitalized 'FULL' helps distinguish this aggregate summary from sibling resource-specific tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or state what it is not.

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 phrase 'FULL status-page summary' implies this is the comprehensive snapshot tool, which provides some usage context compared to sibling list/detail tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over statuspal_get_status or statuspal_list_incidents, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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