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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no date-range defaults, no indication of what history records include or how far back they go.

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?

It is short, but the single content sentence is duplicated verbatim, so half the text is pure waste. The remaining sentence is a platform-wide boilerplate pointer rather than front-loaded tool-specific information.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, nested opaque parameters, and no output schema, the description carries a heavy burden and fails to meet it. An agent cannot tell what filters are valid or what the response shape is without a separate describe_operation call.

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 both parameters (query, params) are unnamed free-form nested objects with no descriptions or enums. The description does not identify what filters the query accepts or what params is for; it only redirects to describe_operation for schemas, which is minimal compensation.

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 essentially the endpoint path restated verbatim twice, which only tautologically echoes the title 'GET /api/support/incidents/history'. It names the resource area (support incidents history) but gives no verb-level explanation of what the tool actually returns, what 'history' contains, or how it differs from get_support_incidents_* siblings.

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 over get_support_incidents_fd51861c1ad5681ce89554c4, get_support_incidents_by_id, or describe_operation. The only pointer is a generic note that describe_operation provides native request schemas, which is a fallback routing hint, not usage context.

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