Get ping body

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

Even though annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavioral disclosure: 64 KB truncation, the unusual read-write key requirement for a read-only operation, the misleading 401 message, and why a read-only key can never produce a valid UUID argument. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and immediately useful. The description is longer than average, but the extra length is mostly high-signal: truncation, key requirements, error semantics, and troubleshooting guidance. The second paragraph is slightly repetitive in reinforcing the read-only limitation, but it does clarify a genuinely confusing failure mode.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is complete for correct invocation. It explains truncation, the key prerequisite, how to check the key type, why the UUID argument may be unobtainable, and where related list_checks/get_api_key_info tools fit. There is no critical missing behavioral or contextual detail.

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 both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics for the 'check' parameter by explaining that read-only keys never see UUIDs and that list_checks returns a different identifier, which directly affects correct invocation. The 'n' parameter is already well covered by the schema's reference to list_pings.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'returns the body that was POSTed with one ping' and explicitly frames it as the fastest way to see why a check failed. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_pings, which return lists of pings, and get_check, which returns check configuration.

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 explicit when-to-use context ('fastest way to see why a check failed'), tells the user to call get_api_key_info when unsure about key type, and explains when the tool cannot be used at all ('with a read-only key this endpoint is out of reach'). This is actionable routing guidance rather than vague context.

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