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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-obvious trait: it consumes the project's monthly fix-plan allowance the first time and is cached thereafter — a quota/cost behavior not in annotations.

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 tight sentences with the output content front-loaded and the quota/caching caveat trailing. No filler; each clause carries information.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the response contains (root cause, files/lines, change, verification) and the caching/quota behavior. The only real gap is the undocumented incident_id parameter.

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 only 50%: the 'project' param is documented but 'incident_id' has no description. The description mentions 'of an incident' but does not clarify the incident_id's role or the multi-project scoping requirement, leaving the coverage gap uncompensated.

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?

Specific verb+resource: produces concrete fix steps 'written from its evidence: root cause, files and lines, the change, how to verify' for a given incident. It's clearly distinguishable from relia_get_incident (retrieval) by describing the generated output, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 — the output describes a remediation plan that naturally follows diagnosis, and the caching note hints at repeat calls. But it never states when to use this vs relia_get_incident, relia_ask, or relia_mark_fixed, and gives no prerequisites.

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