Service Check History

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 clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema: newest-first ordering, one row per execution, and the meaning of rising versus instant failures. This exceeds the baseline but does not fully describe all sorting or pagination nuances.

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: the first states precisely what the tool returns, the second routes around the sibling tool, and the third supplies diagnostic value. All information is front-loaded and 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?

For a read-only listing tool with a rich output schema and fully self-documented parameters, the description is complete. It covers what rows represent, ordering, the relationship to a sibling tool, and even provides diagnostic interpretation guidance. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including defaults and constraints. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which puts it at the baseline for this dimension.

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 individual check executions for a service, newest first, with output, latency, and execution time. It also explicitly contrasts itself with list_service_state_changes, which only covers state-change points, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 explicitly names the sibling alternative and explains the difference: list_service_state_changes covers only state changes, while this tool returns one row per check execution. It also adds diagnostic guidance for interpreting executionTime patterns, helping the agent decide when this tool's data is relevant.

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