get-check-downtimes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation ('get') but fails to mention pagination behavior (despite the 'page' parameter), response structure, or any additional context such as ordering or filtering. The description is too minimal to be 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, containing no extraneous information.

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 tool is relatively simple (read history with two params), and the schema covers parameter meaning. However, the absence of an output schema and any description of what the downtime history includes (e.g., start/end times, duration) leaves some gaps. The description is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'page' and 'token' already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool gets downtime history for a monitoring check, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('downtime history'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get-check (which retrieves check details) and get-check-metrics (which retrieves metrics).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what the tool does without any context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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