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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return contents, including AI-generated root cause analysis, which the annotations cannot convey, but it omits ordering, recency window, and pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the enumerated return fields follow. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the field enumeration carries the return value explanation, which is helpful. However, with several incident-related siblings in the catalog, the definition leaves the boundary between 'active and recent incidents' and 'recent outages' or incident details undefined, which is a meaningful gap for correct tool selection.

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 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, including default, min, and max, so the schema carries the full burden. The description says nothing about the limit or about what determines which incidents are included, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('active and recent outage incidents') and enumerates the payload fields (start time, resolution time, root cause analysis). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_recent_outages or get_incident_details, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of when to prefer this over list_recent_outages or get_incident_details, no prerequisites, and no note on what 'active and recent' means temporally. The only usage signal is implicit in the word 'incidents'.

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