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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the default result ordering, but says nothing about pagination behavior, the limit default interacting with result count, or what fields an incident carries.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the behavioral summary and ordering arrive first, and the usage cue follows immediately. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 read-only, zero-required-param list tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. Minor gaps remain around pagination/result-count behavior and whether 'open' is itself a filter, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, and each of the three parameters is already well documented in the schema (appId source, limit default/max, severity enum examples). The description's 'worst first' ordering hints at severity semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific resource (open incidents) and scope ('what's broken right now'), plus the sort order ('worst first, by severity, then most recent'). It is clearly distinguishable from get_incident and get_app_health in substance, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Start here when asked to fix Vigilia incidents or to check what's wrong with an app' gives a concrete entry-point condition for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. get_incident for a single incident, get_app_health for a general health snapshot) or stating when not to use it.

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