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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: ordering by start time, anonymous maximum of 5, and the exclusion of monitoring-phase incidents unless authenticated history is requested. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful operational details.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds useful information. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, making it appropriately sized and structured.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, scope, ordering, and key access constraints. The only minor gap is the slightly ambiguous phrase 'authenticated history is requested,' but overall the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (limit, timePeriod, includeResolved). The description reinforces the anonymous limit but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus 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 clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('vendor incidents across all monitored vendors'), with scope ('all monitored vendors') and ordering ('newest start first'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vendor_incidents, which likely targets a specific vendor, and list_monitored_vendors, which lists vendors rather than incidents.

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 context (anonymous maximum of 5, exclusion of monitoring-phase incidents unless authenticated) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The guidance is present but inferred rather than explicit.

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