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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false), it discloses a confirmation-prompt behavior and that the action otherwise runs on the token's scope. It also states 'Not read-only.' No contradiction with annotations; it adds useful behavioral context for a mutation.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, audience, and behavioral caveat. No filler or repetition; front-loaded with the core operation.

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?

Given the output schema, 100% param coverage, and annotations, the description covers purpose, audience, confirmation behavior, and token scope. It is slightly vague about when confirmation is possible, but overall enough for an agent to call it 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%, so the schema already documents id, phase, and message fully. The description only mentions phase + message at a high level and does not add semantics beyond the schema; 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?

The description opens with a specific action and resource: posting a public, customer-facing update to an incident's status-page timeline. It also clarifies the content (phase + message) and differentiates from siblings like publish_incident or update_status_page by emphasizing the status-page timeline and subscriber visibility.

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 gives clear context for use: this is what subscribers and status-page visitors see, so an agent can infer it is the tool for public incident timeline communication. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is strong enough for routing.

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