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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description materially adds that results include complete, failed, and uncertain receipts (not a success-only view) and that results are paginated, which is genuine behavioral context beyond 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its scope, with no filler. The final clause about nextCursor is compact but introduces a field name that does not exist, which slightly undercuts the otherwise tight structure.

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 five-parameter, zero-coverage, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers what is returned (state-preserving receipts) but omits how to scope the query, what limit/offset mean, and what the response shape is. Combined with the misnamed cursor, an agent still lacks enough information to call it correctly on the first try.

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 all parameter meaning, and it does not: the required projectId, environmentId and runId scoping fields and the limit parameter are unexplained. Worse, it instructs the agent to 'follow nextCursor' while the schema's pagination parameter is named 'cursor' and is an integer, giving an agent a name it cannot match to any field.

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 ('Read retained operator interventions') bounded to 'one scoped run', and explicitly excludes adjacent concepts ('not customer-target actions or new simulations'), which separates it from sibling tools like firedrill_intervene and the simulation-related tools. An agent can distinguish it without opening any 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 is only implied: the exclusions ('not customer-target actions or new simulations') clarify what the data is rather than when to call this tool versus alternatives. It never names a sibling to prefer, nor states a prerequisite or condition that selects this tool, so guidance is present but inferential.

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