Get Zendesk system status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the data source, that only live/maintenance data exists, and that resolved incidents cannot be retrieved. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the data-source detail and the limitation. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the resource, the source, the optional filter, and the key coverage limitation. No return-format explanation is required in the absence of an output schema.

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?

There is one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining the subdomain format, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that filtering is optional ('optionally filtered to a subdomain'), a marginal gain over the schema.

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?

States a specific resource (live active incidents and upcoming maintenance) and names its authoritative source (the official Zendesk Status API at status.zendesk.com), which naturally separates it from siblings like get_zendesk_changes or get_help_article. An agent can predict the returned content without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context (checking system health/incidents, optionally scoped to one subdomain) and states an explicit limitation — historical/resolved incidents are unavailable — which effectively tells the agent when this tool will fail to answer. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for historical or changelog data.

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