get_uptime_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (timezone, per-day data, summary, history) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get'. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but for a report-fetching tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences: the first states the core action and scope, the second enumerates the key return fields. No filler or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it does, which is beneficial. It lacks any note about the relationship between 'days' and 'month' (possibly mutually exclusive), which is a minor gap but not fatal for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions (days, month, timezone, monitor_id, hourly_stats). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond mentioning optional hourly_stats in the output, which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Get the uptime report for a specific monitor' — a clear verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_uptime_monitors and list_downtimes by focusing on a per-monitor report.

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?

It clearly targets a specific monitor's uptime report, implying when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'for listing monitors, use list_uptime_monitors.' Still, the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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