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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is to add context — it does by disclosing provenance (checks in incident_mode review), sort order (pending first), and the downstream consequence of approving. It omits what is returned per proposal, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 with the key scoping information front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing is telegraphic ('from checks in incident_mode review'), which costs a little readability but saves words.

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 simple read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and ordering but leaves the required slug undefined and gives no hint of the fields a proposal contains. Adequate but with a clear gap an agent will hit on the first call.

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 single required 'slug' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it at all. An agent must guess whether slug identifies a status page, an incident, or a check, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Drafts waiting for review from checks in incident_mode review') and adds ordering (pending first). It implicitly separates this list tool from the approve/dismiss siblings by describing the drafting state, though it never names those siblings.

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: this is where you see proposals awaiting review, and 'Approving one publishes it as a status incident' gestures at the follow-up action. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative such as approve_incident_proposal or dismiss_incident_proposal.

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