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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the scoping detail (assigned or opened by you), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose any additional traits such as pagination behavior or return format; the output schema presumably covers that. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. There is zero unnecessary wording, and it is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient for a simple list tool. It states what is listed (incidents for the user) and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The only minor gap is the lack of differentiation from search_incidents, but that falls under usage guidelines, already scored. Overall, nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema describes both parameters fully (limit with default and max, state with allowed values and default). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter information. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 verb (List), the resource (incidents), and the scope (assigned to you or opened by you), which distinguishes it from related tools like servicenow_search_incidents or servicenow_get_incident. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention servicenow_search_incidents or any other sibling, nor does it state conditions under which this tool should be preferred. The only implicit signal is the 'my' scope, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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