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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of useful context beyond that: results are returned newest first, and an 'open' incident means a rule is currently firing for the selected environment. It says nothing about pagination, default limit, or result shape.

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 short sentences with no filler, ordering and the key semantic clarification given up front. Every 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 listing tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, ordering, and the meaning of the status values that matter most. It stops short of describing pagination or the default page size implied by the undocumented 'limit' 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 50%: 'app' and 'environment' are documented in the schema, while 'limit' and 'status' are not. The description only reiterates status filtering and does not clarify what 'all' means or what acknowledged versus resolved signify, so it adds marginal value over the structured fields.

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 names the resource (alert incidents), the scoping dimension (an application), the ordering (newest first), and the filter (status), which is enough to separate it from list_errors or get_error. The verb 'list' is only implied via the title rather than stated in the sentence, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 choose this over sibling read tools such as list_errors, get_error, or ask_saaspromax, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The sentence about what an open incident means explains a concept rather than when to invoke the tool.

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