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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuine facts beyond that: results are bounded and scoped to the signed report context (an implicit auth/session dependency). It does not explain pagination behavior, ordering, or what an incident record contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

Four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a mutation-free but context-dependent read. For a tool whose inputs include an enum severity filter, a cursor, and a block-height bound, one sentence describing scope is not enough for correct invocation.

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% and the description does almost nothing to compensate. 'Bounded' hints at the limit parameter, but severity filtering, cursor pagination, and since_height (presumably a block height) are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer semantics from bare property names.

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 ('Return'), resource ('recent incidents'), and scope qualifiers ('bounded', 'associated with the current signed report context'). It is clear what the tool fetches, though it never differentiates itself from siblings like fet112.security_report or fet112.transaction_activity, so an agent gets no routing help from the text alone.

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?

There is a faint precondition ('current signed report context'), but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool. Nothing tells the agent whether incident data should come from here versus security_report or analytics_query.

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