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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false annotations, the description explains the monitor-token trust model: it can read state for a third-party dashboard without exposing the owner credential. It also discloses that duration metrics are computed at read time over a retained event window, which is useful behavioral context not covered by 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the remaining prose is dense, with nested parentheticals and phrases like "the list does not pay for it" that require interpretation. Most content is relevant, though the structure could be clearer and more scannable.

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 carries responsibility for describing return values; it usefully explains next_expected_at, p50_ms, and max_ms. However, it does not describe the rest of the endpoint status payload or error behavior, so it is only partially complete for an agent invoking the tool.

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 the schema already defines id, token, and guest_token, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds partial token-choice meaning with "use the endpoint token if you have it" and the read-only monitor token, but it does not explain guest_token usage or further clarify id semantics.

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 first phrase, "Status of one endpoint," states a specific resource and scope, making clear this is a single-endpoint read rather than a list operation. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 says "use the endpoint token if you have it," but that is authentication guidance for a parameter rather than guidance on when to choose get_endpoint over list_endpoints or other tools. It provides no explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing.

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