get_public_status_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new context: no credentials required, only published data is exposed, and a missing page or an MCP-disabled page returns an error. The failure mode disclosure is exactly the kind of information annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: purpose and return values first, then alternatives, then error behavior. No filler, no repetition of structured fields.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description names the returned fields and the failure cases, and it covers auth and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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%; the slug parameter already documents its meaning, pattern, and position in the URL, so the description correctly does not repeat it. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no supplementary parameter semantics.

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?

"Read the published health summary for a status-page slug" gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, and the following sentence enumerates exactly what is returned (overall/component status, 90-day uptime, active public incidents). It is immediately distinguishable from get_incident/list_incidents and from the public incident-history siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for the summary, use list_public_status_page_incidents for incident history, and list_public_status_page_maintenance for downtime schedules. It also states the precondition (no credentials, published pages only), so there is no ambiguity about when this call applies.

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