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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real operational value: 'No pagination or result limit' warns of potentially unbounded result sets, 'newest first' fixes the ordering, and the empty-list case for a valid incident with no alerts removes ambiguity about errors versus absence.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is returned, the no-pagination/ordering behavior, and the empty-result case. The core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: the input is identified, the ordering and lack of pagination are stated, and the return content is sketched (delivery-status identifiers, integration details). The only gap is that the shape of the returned records is not described, which matters somewhat since no output schema exists.

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%, and the schema itself explains that incidentExternalId is the external GUID returned as Id by IncidentList, MonitorIncidents, or HeartbeatIncidents. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond naming the resource it applies to, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get alert delivery records for a non-deleted incident,' and adds scope details (authenticated organization, newest first, delivery-status identifiers and integration details). This distinguishes it implicitly from incident_get or incident_report, which return incident detail rather than alert delivery history, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting whether and how an incident's alerts were delivered. There is no explicit when-to-use trigger, no exclusion (e.g., 'for incident summary use incident_summary'), and no mention of when the alert data would be absent.

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