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

Annotations only say this is a non-read, non-destructive, possibly non-idempotent write; the description adds real behavior beyond that — the call kicks off an automated traffic watch and yields a verified/failed verdict. It does not say whether re-calling is safe or how partial failures are reported, despite idempotentHint=false.

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 sentences, no filler, with the timing condition first and the blocking gate second. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and the critical gate. It leaves gaps on idempotency and on what a 'still happening' outcome means for the incident's state, but nothing essential to making the call is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns a step above it by stating the consequence of confirm: false ('nothing happens'), which is more than the schema's guidance of when to set it true.

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?

Uses a concrete verb plus resource ('tell Relia an incident is fixed') and explains the follow-on effect (Relia watches traffic to verify). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like relia_set_verdict or relia_report_change, so an agent must infer which is the right one.

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?

Gives a clear timing condition ('After the fix is live') and a hard precondition ('Nothing happens without confirm: true'), which tells the agent exactly when the call is appropriate. It stops short of naming alternatives for the cases where the fix isn't live or the incident is the wrong one.

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