get_endpoint_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully discloses the payload contents (response times, status codes, error messages), but says nothing about time-range scope, pagination, or whether only the most recent checks are 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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and the returned fields front-loaded. Nothing is wasted or repeated.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. The one notable gap is the absence of any mention of the time window or result ordering, which matters for interpreting 'history'.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning about endpoint_id format or how limit interacts with ordering.

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 ('Get detailed check history for a specific endpoint') and enumerates the returned data (response times, status codes, error messages). It is clearly distinguishable from list_endpoints, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with.

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 phrase 'for a specific endpoint' implies per-endpoint drill-down versus the list_* tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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