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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description adds that both open and resolved incidents are returned and that results are recent rather than exhaustive. It does not say how far back "recent" reaches, whether results are paginated or capped, or anything about ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope and status coverage appear immediately. Nothing in it is redundant with the title.

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 zero-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient, but it leaves "recent" undefined and says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what an incident record contains. An agent can call it, but cannot predict the shape or size of the response.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The mention of open and resolved statuses is a fixed scope, not a parameter.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("List ... incidents") with a stated scope (across the team monitors) and a stated status range (open and resolved). It is distinguishable from siblings like list-monitors and list-recent-checks by the resource name, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs incident history rather than monitor configuration. There is no explicit when/when-not, no mention of how this differs from list-recent-checks, and no guidance on the limits of "recent".

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