Service Downtimes

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the scheduled-vs-running distinction, but no further behavioral context such as response ordering, pagination, or how service downtimes relate to host downtimes.

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 first identifies the resource, and the second delivers the two most decision-relevant parameter tips. 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 list tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the core semantic distinction (scheduled vs running) and the all-services behavior. It does not explain how service downtimes relate to host downtimes, but that is not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates the 'empty means all' and 'only_active' semantics but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Scheduled and running downtimes for services,' which clearly identifies the resource and scope. It distinguishes from the sibling list_host_downtimes by the 'services' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling.

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?

It gives concrete parameter guidance: 'Leave hostname/servicename empty for all services' and 'Set only_active=True for downtimes running right now.' However, it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_host_downtimes or the acknowledgement-listing siblings.

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