Get uptime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuine behavioral context beyond that: the 30d window cap unless the plan includes a year of history, that the result reports the effective window, pagination via next_cursor, and the important caveat that unmeasured time is no data rather than 100% uptime.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is read, then scoping/pagination, then alternatives. Every sentence carries information, though the window cap is stated in both description and schema, a small redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not explain return shape, and it still covers the caveats an agent needs: window capping, cursor following, and the misreading risk of treating missing data as full uptime.

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, but the description adds interaction semantics the schema does not: monitor=* means every monitor a page at a time while a specific id returns that monitor alone and must not be paired with a cursor. It also explains that window may be silently reduced and the effective value is reported back.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource plus the exact metrics returned (uptime, downtime minutes, incident counts, daily history). It also names the two siblings that cover adjacent concerns, so an agent can distinguish it from get_response_times and get_incidents without reading schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes latency questions to get_response_times and failure-cause questions to get_incidents. It also gives the operational rules for choosing a scope: omit monitor or pass * for all (paginated), pass an id for one monitor and no cursor with it.

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