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

Annotations already signal a mutating, non-idempotent operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the incident is public and emailed to subscribers unless notify_subscribers is false, which is a significant side effect an agent must know before invoking.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the critical side-effect warning comes second, and the alternative tool is named in the same sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus the rich schema covers what an agent needs: purpose, side effects, required user confirmation, and a clear alternative. It does not describe return values, but the schema and annotations cover the parameter space adequately.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces the notify_subscribers behavior and the 'first update' concept, but it does not add meaning beyond what the property descriptions already provide, hence the baseline score of 3.

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: 'Publish an incident on status pages, with its first update.' It also differentiates from the sibling create_outage by explicitly noting the internal incident path, so an agent can distinguish the two tools immediately.

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?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use directive: 'To record an incident internally and page on-call instead, use create_outage.' It also instructs the agent to 'confirm the wording with the user first,' which is a concrete usage prerequisite.

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