status_leaderboard

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

Annotations indicate read-only behavior, and the description adds valuable context: it computes from minute-resolution counters, and for longer windows returns additional fields (incident_count, mttr_minutes). It also discloses cost and token requirements, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with two sentences, each sentence adds value: first explains the main purpose and data source, second explains parameter behavior and prerequisites. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simple input and no output schema, the description covers input behavior, costing, and additional data, but fails to describe the output format (e.g., list of providers with uptime percentages). The agent would need to infer or test the response structure.

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 schema description for the 'days' parameter is complete, and the tool description adds significant meaning by linking the parameter value to free/paid tiers, credit cost, and additional returned fields. This helps the agent understand the impact of the parameter value.

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 states it is a cross-provider uptime leaderboard ranked by uptime % descending. The purpose is specific and conveys the resource and action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like status_uptime, which might also provide uptime information.

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 provides usage context by explaining free vs paid windows and the need for a TENSORFEED_TOKEN for longer periods, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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