get-status-page-degradation

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond stating it gets 'detailed information'. With annotations covering the core behavioral traits, the description is adequate but not enriched.

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 a single, clear sentence with 8 words. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

While the tool is simple (get by two IDs), the description does not explain what 'detailed information' entails, and there is no output schema. For a read tool, lack of return structure hints reduces completeness. It is minimally complete but could be improved by describing the output fields or format.

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 input schema already describes both parameters fully (pageId: 'The status page ID', degradationId: 'The degradation ID') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for coverage.

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 the tool's function: 'Get detailed information about a specific degradation incident'. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('degradation incident'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list-status-page-degradations' (list vs. specific) and 'get-status-page' (different resource).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. It simply states what the tool does without contextualizing its use case among siblings.

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