check_outages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only check operation and discloses the optional authentication path and its effect on results. It doesn't detail return format or side effects, but 'Check' strongly implies a non-mutating query.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the purpose, scoping method, and optional authentication behavior without any filler. Every phrase adds value.

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?

The description doesn't clarify whether at least one of address or ZIP is required, even though the schema marks all parameters optional. With no output schema, the description also fails to describe what the tool returns, leaving the agent uncertain about response shape and how login affects results.

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 schema already documents each parameter (100% coverage), but the description adds relational meaning: ZIP code or address are alternative location inputs, and username/password are optional login credentials. This helps an agent understand how to combine parameters.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('active Spectrum service outages') and scoping method ('by ZIP code or address'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pay_bill or schedule_technician.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: checking outages by location, with optional login for account-specific info. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools cover obviously different domains, so the intended usage is clear.

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