get_downtime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds value by mentioning the specific aspects of the downtime (scope, schedule, status) that the tool reveals, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then a clear usage condition. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter, read-only, with an output schema). The description and schema together provide all necessary information: what it does, when to use it, and what input is needed. There are no significant gaps.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter (downtime_id) with a helpful description ('Downtime ID from list_downtimes'). The description itself does not add further parameter semantics, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Get complete details of a specific downtime' with a specific verb ('get'), resource ('downtime'), and scope ('complete details'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_downtimes (which lists all) and schedule/update (which mutate).

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when: need to see a downtime's exact scope, schedule, or status.' This clearly conveys when to choose this tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like list_downtimes for other contexts. It is still clear and actionable.

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