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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond a pointer to describe_operation — no pagination, sorting, default limits, or result shape.

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?

The single meaningful sentence is immediately duplicated verbatim, wasting the front-loaded position on redundant text. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 list endpoint with fully undocumented parameters, no output schema, and many overlapping incident siblings, the description omits filters, pagination, and response shape. It tells the agent to go elsewhere for schemas but does not make the tool callable on its own merits.

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 0% and the two parameters are opaque objects ('query' and an empty 'params'). The description does not explain them, only noting that describe_operation holds the native schemas — a useful hint, but no semantics an agent can act on directly.

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 is just the HTTP path repeated twice ('GET /api/support/incidents'), which restates the name/title rather than explaining what the tool does. An agent can guess it lists support incidents, but nothing states scope, filters, or how it differs from siblings like get_support_incidents_history or get_support_incidents_by_id.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only pointer is to describe_operation for request schemas, which is documentation routing, not usage guidance. Several sibling incident tools exist and none are mentioned.

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