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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that data is 'reported exactly as recorded, not a safety judgment' and mentions price per row. It explains the tool returns entity-resolved operator and lists output fields. While it omits rate limits or pagination details, it gives sufficient behavioral insight for a read-only search tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a price note. It is front-loaded with a question that engages the user. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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?

Given 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, filters, and return fields (incident, operator, location, commodity, casualties, cost, cause). It also specifies time range and modes. It could mention pagination (offset/limit) but overall is complete enough for effective use.

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 each parameter is described in the schema. The tool description adds context like operator being 'suffix/punctuation-insensitive' and summarizes filter options, but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a clear question 'Which pipeline operators had a reported incident?' and explicitly states it searches PHMSA pipeline incidents by multiple criteria. It lists returned fields and distinguishes from sibling tool phmsa_operators_search by focusing on incidents rather than operators. The verb 'search' and resource 'PHMSA pipeline incidents' are specific.

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 enumerates searchable fields (operator, mode, state, cause, etc.) and specifies data scope (2010+, gas distribution/hazardous liquid/gas transmission). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the focus on incidents vs operators is clear. No when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is adequate.

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