List status flips

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: the instance retains only the current month and the two prior months, and either a UUID or unique_key may be used. This goes beyond what 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the action is stated first, then scope/retention, then the accepted identifier format. 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 annotations, output schema, and fully described input schema, the description provides enough orientation for a simple read-only history tool. The retention limit and identifier flexibility are useful additions. It could be stronger with explicit sibling guidance, but nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a description. The tool description restates the UUID/unique_key identifier behavior but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.

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 names a specific verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('the up/down transitions of a check'), and clarifies that these are the history behind the current status. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_pings or get_status even without naming them.

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 intended use—viewing flip history for a check—is implied by the description, and the retention-window note ('current month and the two before it') gives practical context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over list_pings or get_status, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.

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