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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing response content: the suggested limit with its unit and range, what a stop action would turn off, and why a given option is not offered — meaningful behavioral context that no structured field provides.

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 tight sentence front-loads the core purpose, and a second clause enumerates the returned fields. No filler, though the phrasing ('With the suggested limit and its unit and range, what a stop would turn off...') is grammatically awkward and slightly harder to parse than needed.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so for the main fields: suggested limit, unit, range, stop impact, and unavailable-option reasons. It stops short of describing the overall response shape (e.g., whether options are a list keyed by type), which would help an agent parse results.

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?

There is a single required parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about how the id scopes the result set (e.g., whether it returns options for that specific incident only, or workspace-wide).

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 makes clear this is an enumeration tool: it returns 'the ways an incident can be resolved' rather than performing a resolution. Listing the four possible actions (mark resolved, change limit, stop alerting, pause monitor) implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling action tools that perform each one. It is framed as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, so it reads as a data-retrieval tool only by inference.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus vs_incidents_mark_resolved, vs_incidents_change_limit, vs_incidents_stop_alerting, or vs_incidents_pause_monitor — even though the description names exactly those actions. An agent must infer that this is a discovery step to run before choosing one of those tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or sequencing are stated.

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