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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds sorting order, default unresolved-only behavior, Incident lifecycle semantics, and the 'lean rows' expectation. This is meaningful behavioral context that helps an agent predict results and side effects.

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 description is dense and mostly front-loaded with the core behavior. The lifecycle explanation is useful, though phrases like 'incident archaeology' and the final monitoring-topic sentence add color rather than critical operational guidance.

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?

It covers sorting, default filtering, optional filters, lifecycle behavior, and directs users to get_incident for detailed fields. With no output schema, it does not enumerate exact returned fields, but 'lean rows' and the pointer to get_incident provide adequate guidance for agent selection and invocation.

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 high (83%), so the description need not restate parameter meanings. It adds some context around since/until as a window and includeResolved as 'incident archaeology', but most parameter semantics are already in the schema. The projectId parameter lacks a schema description, but its meaning is obvious from the tool name.

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 clearly states the tool lists a project's Incidents with specific sorting and default filtering behavior. It also distinguishes itself from get_incident by noting that list rows are lean and details are available from get_incident.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use includeResolved, since/until, and monitorId, and directs users to get_incident when they need richer detail on a single Incident. This gives an agent clear decision criteria among sibling tools.

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