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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing provenance (every incident comes from an official disclosure), but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or recency limits.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and then the filters; nothing is wasted. The nested parentheticals and the 'bot, exchange or wallet tracked by check' clause make it slightly denser than ideal, but no sentence is filler.

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?

A simple two-optional-param read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations needs little more. With no output schema, though, the description never hints at what an incident record contains (fields, count, ordering), leaving the agent to discover the return shape by calling it.

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 100%, so both params are already documented with formats and examples; baseline is 3. The description adds only a mild hint that the `tool` filter also accepts bots, exchanges and wallets, which is not evident from the parameter name alone but is not spelled out either.

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 resource (security incidents involving AI agents, trading tools and infrastructure) and a clear scope of what counts as an incident (breaches, exploits, security releases) sourced from official disclosures. No sibling covers this domain, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, which keeps it just short of 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?

The description implies usage by describing the two filter modes (date, tool/bot/exchange/wallet), and references the `check` sibling for tracked entities, giving a partial routing hint. It never states when not to use it or what alternative covers related needs (e.g. get_risk, search_tools).

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