vendors_down_now

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains selection criteria (not fully operational), ordering (major, partial, degraded, then maintenance), time scope (newest poll), and aggregation (counts by state). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the query-like wording strongly implies a safe read operation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first packs selection, ordering, and aggregation; the second states the intended user query. All key details are front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with four optional parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description gives sufficient invocation context. Since there is no output schema, a brief sketch of the response shape would make it more complete, but the core selection, ordering, aggregation, and use case are all present.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the state vocabulary and the notion that maintenance is included, but it does not add meaning beyond what the input 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 clearly defines what the tool returns: vendors not fully operational in the newest poll, sorted worst-first, with counts by state. The scope 'across all polled vendors' distinguishes it from single-vendor tools like vendor_status and from incident-detail or feed tools in the sibling list.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: 'which SaaS vendors have incidents right now'. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so some routing burden is left to sibling descriptions.

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