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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read-only operation, and the description adds substantial context about what evidence is returned: confirming regions, first failure, false alarms, rolled-up checks, updates, notifications, and external dependency status. It does not discuss data freshness, size, or rate limits, but the return-content disclosure is strong.

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 front-loaded with the triggering scenarios and then enumerates the returned evidence. It is long but structured, and nearly every clause adds useful scope; minor verbosity keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly. An agent can understand what will be returned and when to call this tool instead of list_incidents.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get_incident') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling list tool by saying it returns the incident with its evidence. The opening use-case sentence makes the tool's scope concrete.

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?

Explicitly names the user questions that should trigger this tool and ends with a clear exclusion: 'Not for listing incidents: use list_incidents.' This gives both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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