downtime_events

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts: results are ordered newest first, and operator names are pseudonymized by policy. The latter is a real data-handling disclosure an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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, no filler, with the resource and ordering front-loaded and the drill-down relationship second. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, ordering, privacy handling, and the drill-down relationship. The missing element is any pointer to the available filters, which matters for a tool whose parameters are largely undocumentmented.

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?

With schema coverage at only 60%, the description must compensate. It adds nothing about the parameters — notably 'reason' and 'limit' are undocumented in both schema and description, and nothing tells the agent that machine_id, reason, or date range can be used to narrow the drill-down.

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?

Names a specific resource (individual downtime events) and a clear scope ('newest first'), and explicitly frames itself as a drill-down companion to downtime_pareto, distinguishing it from that sibling's aggregate view. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'list', but the retrieval intent is unmistakable.

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?

'for drill-down after downtime_pareto' states exactly when an agent should reach for this tool and positions the sibling as the entry point. It provides no exclusions or negative guidance, but the triggering context is explicit rather than implied.

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