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

readOnlyHint=true already marks this as a safe read. The description goes beyond the annotation by disclosing return ordering (newest first), pagination size (100 per page), the returned fields, and the underlying API endpoint, though it says nothing about authentication requirements.

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?

A single compact sentence plus the endpoint reference; the resource, ordering, pagination, and payload fields are all front-loaded with zero 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and pagination behavior. Only minor gaps remain, such as auth requirements and how the optional results parameter expands the payload (the schema does note it can be large).

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates page size and ordering; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('List the downtimes of one check') plus ordering and page size. It is the only downtime-oriented tool among its siblings, so an agent can select it without 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the token example points at updown_list_checks as the source of the input, which implies the call flow. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to an alternative tool.

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