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

The readOnlyHint annotation already conveys the safe read-only nature, and the description aligns with it by using 'get'. The description adds the 'recent' qualifier, but does not define the time window, ordering, pagination, or return shape, so behavioral disclosure beyond the annotation is limited.

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?

One focused sentence with no filler. The key scoping detail—specific monitor by ID—is front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool with one fully covered parameter and no output schema, this is nearly complete. The main ambiguity is the meaning of 'recent', which is undefined; otherwise an agent has enough information to invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100% and monitor_id is already described as 'The UUID of the monitor to get incidents for'. The description only restates 'by ID' without adding format, constraints, or additional behavior, so it stays at the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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?

Clearly states the action (get), resource (incidents), and scope (specific monitor by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-all-incidents, which covers incidents across monitors, and diagnose-incident, which handles individual incident analysis.

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 makes clear this tool is for incidents of a specific monitor rather than a global incident list. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list-all-incidents or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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