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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description adds genuine extra context: empty-result semantics, a prohibition on fabricating content, and offset-based paging. It stops short of describing page size or result ordering.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then result semantics, then a guardrail, then paging. Each sentence carries distinct information; only the 'do not invent' sentence is arguably policy rather than tool guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description still covers the key edge case (empty results) plus paging. The remaining gap is the undocumented required boardId and the includeRetired flag.

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 description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' matches name, summary, or customer-facing wording and that 'offset' drives paging, but leaves 'includeRetired' and the required 'boardId' entirely unexplained.

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?

Specific verb ('Look up') plus a precisely scoped resource ('approved incident states') and the searchable fields (name, summary, customer-facing wording). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_approved_statements and list_approved_causes, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'empty result means there is no approved wording' note and the 'do not invent' guardrail signal that this is a pre-write lookup for approved text, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative among the many approved-content siblings.

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