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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that by enumerating the three possible outcome states, which is especially valuable given there is no output schema to carry them.

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?

One sentence that leads with the subject of the query and lists the outcomes in a logical sequence. It is appropriately sized, though the sentence fragment structure is slightly less scannable than a verb-first clause.

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?

With no output schema and an annotations block that only covers safety hints, the description does the important remaining work of describing the outcome values an agent will receive. It stops short of explaining timing or polling behavior for the 'still being watched' state.

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%, so the single incidentId parameter is undocumented in structured data. The description never mentions incidentId or its format, but the name is self-explanatory and the tool only takes one argument, so the practical risk is low.

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 states the resource (a fix marked with mark_fixed) and the question it answers (confirmed by traffic, still being watched, or did not hold), and it names the sibling mark_fixed that produces the input. It is a fragment rather than a verb-first statement, but an agent can still tell it apart from get_incident or get_app_health.

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 only implied: by referencing mark_fixed, it suggests this tool is called after a fix has been marked. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must infer the sequencing.

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