peerglass_shutdown_timeline

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description focuses on adding the evidence integrity context (SHA-256 hash) and return value structure (timeline, downtime hours). It successfully adds behavioral traits not covered by annotations, such as the evidentiary nature of the output and its suitability for legal proceedings.

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 follows a clear logical structure: purpose statement, evidence use case, then organized Args and Returns blocks. Every sentence conveys distinct information (scope, integrity feature, use cases, parameter types, return contents). The Args/Returns headers add slight verbosity but are appropriate for technical clarity.

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 tool's specific forensic purpose and the presence of good annotations covering safety (read-only, idempotent), the description adequately covers the evidentiary context (SHA-256 hash) and documents the return value contents (timeline, hours, hash) without requiring a separate output schema. The forensic use cases complete the contextual picture.

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?

With 0% top-level schema coverage (the params object lacks a description) and a nested object structure, the Args section in the description performs essential work documenting all four nested fields (resource, start_date, end_date, response_format) with clear examples and format specifications (e.g., ISO dates, markdown/json options), effectively compensating for the wrapper object structure.

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 the tool retrieves a 'timestamped BGP withdrawal/restoration timeline' using specific verbs and identifies the resource. It distinguishes itself from generic monitoring tools via the explicit mention of SHA-256 integrity hashes for legal/forensic use, implicitly differentiating it from sibling tools like peerglass_shutdown_detect.

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 implied usage guidance by specifying the tool is 'useful for UN reports, press, legal proceedings,' indicating forensic/evidence contexts. However, it lacks explicit comparisons to siblings (e.g., peerglass_shutdown_detect) or statements about when not to use this tool versus real-time detection alternatives.

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