Get Status Page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool fetches the public endpoint, only works for published pages, and returns specific content. This is useful transparency beyond the schema. However, it does not mention what happens for unpublished pages or non-existent slugs, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and details, followed by a constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague wording. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the endpoint, the published-page restriction, and the content structure. It could mention error behavior or read-only nature explicitly, but overall it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%: the slug parameter is described as 'The status page slug (the URL-safe identifier).' The description also mentions 'by slug,' reinforcing the usage. Since the schema already provides complete parameter semantics, the description adds no additional detail, matching the baseline of 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?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the full configuration of a status page by slug.' It then enumerates the contained elements (ordered groups, monitors, active incidents), which distinguishes it from sibling listStatusPages (which lists status pages) and CRUD tools (create/update/delete). This is a clear, specific purpose.

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 implies usage by saying 'Returns the full configuration of a status page by slug' and adds a constraint: 'Only works for published status pages.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over listStatusPages or other siblings, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is present but not explicit.

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