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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the incident is public and is emailed to subscribers unless notify_subscribers is false. It does not address what happens on repeated calls or what is returned, but the externally visible side effects are disclosed well.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the routing rule. Every clause carries information; nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.

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 public publishing mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical agent-facing facts: public visibility, subscriber notification, and the alternative internal path. It omits the return value and any duplicate/retry behavior, which are minor gaps given the rich schema.

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 all 8 parameters (including enum semantics, HTML allowance, UUID sources) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the notify_subscribers default behavior, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 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 ('Publish an incident on status pages') plus the scope detail that it creates the incident together with its first update. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (create_outage), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Provides an explicit routing rule: use create_outage to record internally and page on-call instead. It also adds a prerequisite/guardrail ('confirm the wording with the user first') for this public, subscriber-notifying action, which tells the agent when to pause rather than call immediately.

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