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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: large outputs are truncated, the status column distinguishes corroborated vs suspected rows, and the REST URL is the escape hatch for full files. Missing only specifics like the truncation threshold or auth requirements.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence carries distinct information (formats, output semantics, truncation guidance), though the format list partially duplicates the schema.

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 bears the burden of explaining returns; it does cover the status column and truncation, which is useful. However it never says where the 'REST URL' comes from or what the export actually returns, leaving a gap an agent would hit in practice.

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 format enum and country ISO filter are already documented. The description restates the format options and adds only a weak contextual hint that country filtering reduces truncation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Bulk export of the incident corpus') and enumerates the output formats, which cleanly separates it from single-record siblings like get_incident_detail and incremental ones like get_incidents_since. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Provides some operational routing — 'filter by country or fetch the REST URL for the full file' — but this addresses truncation, not tool selection. There is no explicit when-to-use versus the many get_incident_* siblings; the bulk-vs-incremental distinction is left to inference from the word 'bulk'.

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