gorelo_list_uptime_checks

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: results are ordered by createdOn descending and paging is cursor-based, which an agent needs to interpret page contents correctly. It stops short of stating whether a total count or next-cursor is returned.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the pagination and ordering details. Nothing repeats the schema or the annotations.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the two things the structured fields don't: sort order and paging model. Only missing piece is any hint about response shape or how to detect the last page.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, including the 1-200 pageSize constraint and the typeIds enumeration. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (Lists) and resource (uptime checks) with a stated scope ('for the service provider'), which is clear enough to act on. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling gorelo_get_uptime_check or gorelo_list_alerts-adjacent tools, but the list-vs-get contrast is natural here.

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?

Only implied guidance: 'omit for the first page' is stated in the schema, and the description's pagination framing hints at iterative paging. There is no explicit when-to-use versus gorelo_get_uptime_check (single check by id) or how the filters combine, so the agent must infer selection.

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