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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered newest-first and cover both created and updated incidents, which affects how an agent interprets the output. It omits any result-cap or pagination behavior.

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 short sentences, zero padding, and the resource definition plus ordering are front-loaded before the usage hint and format list. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter, single-required, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers resource scope, delta semantics, ordering, and accepted input formats. Only edge behavior (result caps, whether the stack filter is mandatory-adjacent, handling of resolved incidents) is left unstated.

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. The description still adds value by documenting a relative-duration format ("90m") that the schema does not list, clarifying that minute granularity is accepted. The optional stack filter remains schema-only, which keeps this below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — incidents created or updated since a point in time — plus the ordering (newest first), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling diff_since, which serves a potentially overlapping delta role, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Use it to re-check only what changed since your last run" gives a clear, concrete usage context. No explicit exclusions or alternative-tool routing are provided (e.g., when to prefer diff_since or check_repo), so it stops short of a 5.

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