service_outages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description conveys the tool's read-only lookup nature with a service selector. It does not disclose data freshness, access requirements, or the interpretation of resolved vs scheduled, but for a non-destructive query tool this is acceptable.

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 cleanly separate the core purpose from the parameter note, front-loading the actionable context. No unnecessary words or 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?

For a single-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and the parameter format. It could mention output shape or sample values, but the simplicity limits the risk.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that 'service' accepts a site alias, service_id, or 'all' with a default. This adds real meaning beyond the bare string type, though concrete examples would be even better.

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 clearly identifies the resource (NBN/AussieBB outages) and the state categories (current, scheduled, resolved). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the intent is unambiguous and differs from local-gear diagnostic 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 phrase 'check this before blaming local gear' explicitly tells the user when to consult this tool before local troubleshooting tools like check_connection or loopback_test. It does not name alternatives explicitly but sets clear priority context.

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