List pings

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by revealing plan-based caps (100/1000), absence of pagination, the misleading HTTP 401 'wrong api key' error, and the UUID vs unique_key mismatch with read-only keys. These are behavioral traits not visible in annotations or schema, and they materially affect whether and how the tool can be called.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and caps, but the final paragraph repeats the read-only/UUID limitation already stated in the previous paragraph. The same point about 'read-only key cannot see a check UUID' appears twice, making it longer than necessary. Still, the structure flows from behavior to auth caveats to invocation details.

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?

For a tool with this complexity, the description covers the essential invocation conditions, failure modes, plan limits, pagination absence, and recommended preflight via get_api_key_info. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not needed. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call this tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents the check UUID, the read-only key limitation, the type enum, and the limit default and bounds. The description adds operational context like plan caps and the unique_key issue, but these are more behavioral than parameter-specific, so the schema remains the primary source for parameter meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists recent pings of a check, newest first.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and separates it from sibling tools like get_ping_body or list_flips. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 actionable guidance: it explains that a read-only key cannot be used, recommends calling get_api_key_info to verify key type, and clarifies that the endpoint is unreachable with a read-only key. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools for listing pings, but the usage preconditions and fallback actions are clear.

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