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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the authentication requirement (sign-in or API token), indicates the default behavior (open incidents) and the option for full history, and reveals the summary output. While it does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, the verb 'List' implies non-destructive behavior. This is substantial disclosure beyond the schema.

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 description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. The first sentence lists incident types and behavior, the second covers authentication. Every clause adds value with no redundancy or filler. This is an exemplar of concise, informative tool documentation.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: resource (incidents), scope (monitoring), types of incidents, default vs. full history, summary feature, and authentication. No critical operational details are missing, making it complete in context.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (limit and status) with descriptions. The description reinforces the status semantics ('open ones by default, or the full recent history') but does not add new information beyond what the schema offers. Therefore, the description adds minimal value on top of low parameter complexity, keeping it at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool lists incidents from NsLookup.io monitoring, enumerating incident types (downtime, SSL expiry, DNS changes, propagation issues, VMC problems) and mentions an additional summary feature. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('incidents'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like my_monitors or my_certificates.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—listing monitoring incidents—and notes the default vs. full-history behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is specific enough that an agent can infer its appropriate use. A minor deduction for lacking explicit exclusions.

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