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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the operator timeline is untouched, and it 'asks for confirmation where the client can show a prompt; otherwise runs on the token's scope,' covering both interactive and non-interactive paths. The final sentence ('Not read-only; idempotent') restates the annotations rather than adding value, but the other disclosures lift this above baseline. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, or destructiveHint=true.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, with behavioral caveats following in short, separate sentences. The only waste is the final 'Not read-only; idempotent,' which duplicates the annotations — a minor redundancy in an otherwise tight definition.

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 single-parameter tool with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential added context: the reversible nature of the action, the unaffected operator timeline, and the confirmation/token-scope behavior. No critical call-blocking information is missing.

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 schema already documents the single id parameter at 100% coverage, including a provenance hint ('from list_incidents or get_org_health'), so the schema carries the full load. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which per the baseline rule for high schema coverage warrants a 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'Hide a published incident from the public status pages again' — clearly identifying what the tool does. The 'again' phrasing and the unpublish/publish pairing with sibling publish_incident make the action unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it inverts.

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?

Usage context is implied: call this when an incident is currently published and you want to remove it from public status pages, and 'again' signals it reverses a prior publish action. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives such as publish_incident or state conditions for when not to use it, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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