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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating 'Requires an API key', an auth prerequisite not present in the structured fields.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the payload description and the auth requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, returned fields, and the auth requirement, which is close to sufficient. It stops short of routing guidance among the sibling tools.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The phrase 'or one target' loosely echoes the targetId semantics ('narrow to one target; omit for incidents across every target') but adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('list incidents') with useful elaboration on what an incident record contains (open/close times, failing check, cause). It is distinguishable from siblings like agentcheck_get_status or agentcheck_record by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 parenthetical '(or one target)' implies the two usage modes (account-wide vs. narrowed), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings such as get_status, and no stated exclusions. The API-key prerequisite is the only operational cue.

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