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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral details beyond that: it states the output includes 'the monitor that raised each one and its event timeline' and that results are 'newest first'. It also mentions filtering options. These details enrich the agent's understanding of what the call returns and how results are ordered, which is valuable context beyond the 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?

The description is three sentences, with the primary action and key return attributes front-loaded. It efficiently covers the tool's purpose, scope, filtering, and the alternative for mutation, with no unnecessary words. Each sentence earns its place.

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 listing tool with 8 parameters (all optional) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the scope (organization-wide), the return content (monitor and event timeline), ordering (newest first), and the main filtering dimensions. It does not explicitly mention pagination or that results are limited by the 'take' parameter, but the schema documents that. Given that the schema covers parameter details, the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, meaning every parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds a high-level summary of filtering capabilities ('Filter by status, by monitor, by environment or spec, and by time window') but does not provide any syntax or format details beyond what the schema already offers. Since the schema carries the full burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List incidents across the organization, newest first, with the monitor that raised each one and its event timeline.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (incidents), and differentiates from the sibling manage_incident by explicitly naming it as the alternative for acknowledging or resolving incidents.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Works across the organization, no project context needed. Use this to browse incidents; to acknowledge or resolve one use manage_incident.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (browse) and when not to (acknowledge/resolve), and names the alternative tool. It also clarifies the scope (organization-wide).

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