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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the default filter is open incidents, and 'resolved' is implicitly a recency-bounded view. It does not state result limits, ordering, or whether the resolved window is time-boxed.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The default behavior is stated before the alternative and the routing hint is appended last, which is the right order for an agent scanning for a match.

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 one-optional-param read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. The remaining gap is the vague 'recently resolved' boundary and no mention of ordering or result volume.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it explains the default (open) and what status='resolved' selects. The ambiguity is that 'recently resolved' implies a time window whose size is never specified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List incidents') plus the scope of the default result set (open ones). It does not name a sibling such as get_incident or list_anomalies to draw the boundary, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Call this when asked about outages, what's broken, or incident history' gives concrete triggering contexts an agent can match against. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g. use get_incident for a single incident's detail).

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