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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, so the description carries the operational burden and delivers: at-least-once paging semantics with a de-duplication requirement on hashId, cursor continuation protocol, and the upstream corpus_truncated cap that makes has_more:false non-authoritative. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot infer from 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?

Front-loads the core semantics (what, ordering, delta), then the pagination contract, then the truncation caveat. Every sentence changes agent behavior — none is restating the name or 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 must name the response fields that drive logic, and it does: has_more, next_cursor, corpus_truncated, plus the hashId dedup key. An agent has everything needed to sync correctly and to report partial syncs honestly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by explaining cursor's lifecycle ('call again with cursor=<next_cursor>', from the previous response) and the role of the since boundary in delta semantics; limit's cap is left to 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: incidents created OR updated after an ISO timestamp, returned oldest first as a delta sync. That framing ('delta sync', 'created or updated') distinguishes it from pure-state siblings like get_active_incidents or aggregate siblings like get_incident_stats. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the 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?

Gives clear conditions for continued use ('if has_more is true... call again with cursor=<next_cursor> until it is false') and a caveat about when the result is not trustworthy (corpus_truncated). It does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives like export_incidents or get_incident_detail, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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