vendor_resolution_times

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds substantial context: data is computed from the vendor's own posted start and resolve timestamps, maintenance and inferred resolutions are excluded, and the exact metrics are enumerated. It stops short of describing return format, error behavior, or freshness, but the core behavioral profile is well disclosed.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the purpose, enumerates the metrics, and then adds the important non-uptime caveat. Every element earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned metric set, the data source, exclusions, and intended interpretation. An agent can safely invoke it for the right vendor and correctly interpret the returned values, so nothing critical 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 single 'vendor' parameter is fully documented in the schema (name, slug, or status-page domain), so schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces that the data is scoped to one vendor's incidents but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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, informative framing: it quantifies how long incidents take to be resolved徒, enumerates the exact metrics (median, p90, count, max), and explicitly distinguishes itself from uptime/SLA tools. This differentiates it from sibling tools like vendor_status, vendor_incidents, and vendors_down_now without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 establishes the domain clearly: use this when you need one vendor's incident resolution duration metrics computed from posted timestamps. It also gives an explicit when-not signal ('Not an uptime or SLA number'), but it does not name sibling alternatives such as vendor_incidents or vendor_status, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit about routing.

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