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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the endpoint pattern and the response shape (id, name, current_incident_type, children[]), which is especially valuable since there is 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the primary action and result shape come first, followed by a precise endpoint reference. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 list operation with one optional parameter, the description is nearly complete. It provides the resource, endpoint, and key returned fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. Minor omissions such as pagination or ordering are not critical for this tool's obvious purpose.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already explains that subdomain overrides STATUSPAL_SUBDOMAIN. The main description reinforces that subdomain appears in the endpoint path but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, 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 ('List') and resource ('services on a status page'), and even enumerates the returned fields ({id, name, current_incident_type, children[]}). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like statuspal_list_incidents or statuspal_get_service_status, and the explicit REST endpoint leaves no ambiguity.

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 clearly conveys the core use case: retrieving the list of services for a status page. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as statuspal_get_service_status or statuspal_get_status, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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