Get agent liveness history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered and the 'Read-only' phrase partly repeats them. The description still adds value beyond the structured data: 'no account' discloses that no authentication is required, and it specifies the retention windows and the exact return shape (`uptime`, `days[]`, `changes[]`).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return content, with no filler. The 'Read-only, no account' clause slightly overlaps the annotations and the final return-shape sentence mildly restates the opening, but overall it is tight.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('Returns JSON with `uptime`, `days[]` and `changes[]`'). Combined with the complete param documentation, explicit usage guidance, and annotation-covered safety profile, nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or provenance detail about the id beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Returns whether one listed agent kept answering the hub's checks') and enumerates the concrete data returned (7/30/90-day uptime, daily tallies, state changes). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_agent ('get_agent gives the current state only'), so an agent can separate them without opening either 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 an explicit trigger ('Use it before depending on an agent for repeated calls') and names the alternative plus the condition that selects it ('get_agent gives the current state only'). Nothing about when to prefer this tool is left to inference.

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