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

The description discloses key behavioral consequences beyond the annotations: the incident appears in the Incident Management dashboard, it pages on-call responders when an escalation policy is attached, and it is internal only with nothing published on a status page. These are important side effects not captured by readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, or idempotentHint.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the dashboard/paging effect, and the internal-vs-status-page distinction. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant wording.

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 create tool with fully documented parameters and clear side-effect disclosure, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not mention what the tool returns on success, but since there is no output schema and the tool's behavior is well covered, this is not a significant deficiency.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema; the escalation policy behavior is mentioned, but the schema already documents that without one nobody is paged. No parameter needs additional clarification.

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 verb and resource: 'Declare an incident by hand, for a problem no monitor detects.' It clearly distinguishes itself from create_status_page_incident by noting that this tool does not publish to a status page, which separates it from the most similar sibling.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: for problems no monitor detects, i.e., manual declaration. It also names the alternative create_status_page_incident for status-page publication, giving the agent a clear branch between the two tools.

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