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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description earns credit for what it adds: explicit sort order (oldest first), the set of event categories emitted, and the cursor contract for continuation. It does not mention whether `next` is absent when caught up or how far back events are retained, which would complete the polling picture.

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 what-and-ordering, followed by the continuation instruction. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and continuation well enough to call it correctly. It stops short of describing the shape of an individual event or how `next` is surfaced, which matters slightly more here because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 already documents `since` as an ISO date defaulting to the last 7 days, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely new meaning by establishing that `since` doubles as the cursor field fed from a previous response's `next`, which the schema does not state.

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 resource and verb-like behavior ('what changed since a date, oldest first') and enumerates the event types included (incidents created/updated/resolved, service up/down). It is distinguishable from list_incidents by being a change feed rather than a list, though no sibling is named 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?

The polling pattern ('keep `next` and pass it as `since` next time to watch') implies the primary use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_incidents or get_incident, nor any exclusion conditions.

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