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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the declaration is signed and gives a threshold condition, but omits side effects, required signing authority, failure behavior, idempotency, and whether the operation is destructive.

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 very short with no filler and front-loads the trigger condition. However, it is far too terse for a five-parameter signed operation in a complex domain, so its concision comes at the cost of necessary detail.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for five required parameters, the description leaves nearly all operational context unspecified. It does not explain the signing model, nonce handling, incident_id semantics, or return behavior.

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 0% across five required parameters. The description only references 'stricken' and 'rescue_capacity' in a comparison and implies 'signature' through 'signed', but never defines incident_id, nonce, units, formats, or signing requirements.

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 says it is a signed incident declaration and gives a trigger condition, but 'incident declaration' largely restates the tool name and does not explain what declaring an incident actually entails. It also does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as retriage_run or allocation_order.

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?

It provides an explicit invocation predicate ('fires only when stricken > rescue_capacity'), which gives some usage guidance. However, it does not say when not to use it, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to any sibling tool.

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