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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable side-effect context: 'Status-page subscribers may be notified' and 'Asks for confirmation where the client can show a prompt; otherwise runs on the token's scope.' This enriches the behavioral profile without contradicting 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?

Three sentences, each carrying weight: the core effect, the notification side effect, and the confirmation/scope behavior. Front-loaded with the main action, no fluff or repetition.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description covers the essential operational details: effect, optional fields, side effect, confirmation, and scope. It could mention an existing-incident prerequisite, but that is implied by the required 'id' parameter and is minor.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds only that public_title and public_description can be 'seeded', which loosely maps to the schema's 'public' fields. Since schema covers semantics, the baseline 3 is appropriate; description adds marginal value.

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: 'Publish an incident so it appears on every status page carrying the affected monitor.' It also mentions optional seeding of public title/description, which distinguishes it from siblings like unpublish_incident or post_incident_update without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 when to use the tool: to make an incident appear on status pages. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing 'Publish' and the mention of status pages versus updates makes the intended use apparent. Lacks explicit 'use X instead' guidance.

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