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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read. The description goes beyond them usefully: it flags the description field as untrusted, marks 'ongoing' for open incidents, states ordering (newest first), declares the coverage window (default 30, at most 90 days), and notes that uptime/recording-start data is bundled in. No permissions or rate-limit detail, but solid added context.

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 primary resource is front-loaded and the dense parentheticals (incident-type definitions, 'ongoing' marker, untrusted warning) all carry interpretive value for the returned payload. It is somewhat crammed into a single long sentence, but little is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description assumes the full burden of describing return values, and it does so: incident level, start/end with 'ongoing' semantics, duration, description field, average uptime, and recording start. An agent knows what it will receive and over what range.

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 the single 'days' parameter is fully documented in the schema (default 30, at most 90). The description merely repeats these same bounds, adding no syntax or semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (the status page's incident record) and enumerates what each record contains plus the incident-type taxonomy (majority, withholding, spread, split, reorg). This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like network_health and network_trends without opening a schema.

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 by framing it as 'the status page's incident record', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as network_health or network_trends. An agent must infer that this is the historical/incident-view tool rather than being told.

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