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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: default sort order ('most important first') and the shape of each returned row (ids, severity, users affected, fix state). It does not mention default status filtering (open) or the 10-item default limit, which matter for interpretation of results.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the ordering, with no filler. It is arguably too terse to be fully self-sufficient, but nothing is wasted.

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 output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the sort order, and the schema carries parameter defaults and enum semantics. What is missing is guidance on the default open-only scope and result paging, but the core call is answerable.

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%, so all three parameters (limit, status, project) are documented in the schema with defaults and enum values. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb + resource ('Incidents Relia raised') with scope narrowing ('Relia raised' vs. any incident), and it previews the returned fields. It implicitly contrasts with relia_get_incident (singular fetch), though it never names that sibling.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus relia_get_incident for a single incident, or versus relia_status/relia_ack workflows. Usage is only inferable from the name and the word 'Incidents'.

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