Availability Report

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

The description discloses that the report is computed from recorded state changes rather than live checks, and explains the metrics returned. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, the description adds useful computation/output context beyond the safety profile.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose, output metrics, and use cases are each given one clear sentence. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and annotations together give an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. The main remaining gap is the servicename required/optional inconsistency and the lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer a sibling 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%, with each parameter documented, so the main description adds little beyond the example mapping of 'shop01 last month' to hostname/days. There is a notable inconsistency: servicename is described as 'Required' but the schema's required array only lists hostname. This ambiguity prevents a higher score.

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: how available a host or service was over a period, computed from recorded state changes. It further clarifies the report's content (percentage with/without maintenance, time in each state) and gives concrete example queries. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the 'over a period' framing separates it from health-style siblings.

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 'Use it for...' sentence provides two concrete scenarios: 'how available was shop01 last month' and 'did we keep the SLA'. This gives clear intended use context, though it does not state when not to use the tool or explicitly mention alternative tools.

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