check_outages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does (check outages) and parameter usage, but fails to disclose key behavioral traits: e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., list of outages, status codes). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose ('Check for active Xfinity service outages in the service area') and follows with parameter context in a second sentence. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying scope and usage without redundancy or fluff. It's efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (a service check tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, auth needs), output format, and error conditions. While it covers the basic purpose and parameter usage, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively, especially without annotations to fill gaps.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It explains that the address parameter is optional and defaults to the account's service address, which aligns with the schema's 100% coverage (schema already describes it as 'optional, uses account address if omitted'). No additional syntax, format details, or constraints are provided. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'Check for active Xfinity service outages in the service area.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('Xfinity service outages'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_account_overview' or 'pay_bill' by focusing on outage detection rather than billing or account management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (e.g., 'check_network_status'), though none exist in the sibling list.

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: it can check 'a specific address or the account's service address,' suggesting when to use the optional parameter. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use instructions, such as whether it's for real-time status or historical data, or alternatives for non-outage issues. No misleading guidance is present, but the guidance is basic.

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