status_uptime

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

Discloses the cost (1 credit) and the degraded half-credit rule, which are important behavioral details not in struct annotations (none provided). However, it omits potential side effects, permission requirements, or data freshness details, leaving some transparency 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 a single sentence that includes the core functionality, key behavioral note (half-credit), and pricing, with no extraneous words. It is optimally concise and front-loaded.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately outlines the return values (counts and percentage). It could be more precise about the exact structure, but it covers the essential information for a simple rollup tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific context beyond the schema, and the baseline score of 3 applies since no further semantic value is provided.

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 provides a 'daily uptime rollup for one provider' with counts and percentage, which defines the purpose well. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_ai_status or is_service_down, which may offer related but distinct data.

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?

Mentions that it is for one provider and costs 1 credit, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., real-time status vs. rollup). The usage context is implied but not contrasted.

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