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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description still adds useful traits beyond them: results are ordered newest-first and each record carries a public source field. It stops short of disclosing result-set size behavior or whether results are truncated at the limit.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope. Every clause carries information (categories, ordering, included field, optional filter) with no filler.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only list tool with annotations present, the description covers what is returned, how it is ordered, and how to narrow it. With no output schema, a brief note on what happens at the limit boundary would make it fully complete, but nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: 'service' is self-documented in the schema, and the description reinforces it by clarifying that it filters to a single service ('for one service'). 'limit' is never mentioned in the description, though its default/max/min make it self-explanatory in the schema. Adequate, with the schema doing most of the work.

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+resource (list recorded incidents) and immediately enumerates the incident categories covered (held funds, hacks, exit scams, shutdowns, policy changes). The resource is plainly distinct from the service/category-oriented siblings, so an agent can route on it without opening a schema.

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?

'Optionally for one service' signals that filtering is optional and scoped to a single service, which is real usage context. However, it never says when to use this versus a sibling, nor does it name any alternative or exclusion — usage is only implied.

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