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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: anonymous calls return only ongoing incidents, authenticated calls can access resolved history within a plan window, and the tool is explicitly not a monitoring mechanism. This enriches the agent's understanding of authentication and data scope without contradiction.

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: the first fronts the core purpose, the second clarifies behavioral variations. Every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 the presence of an output schema and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description adequately covers the tool's scope, authentication modes, and filtering logic. The moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) is well addressed, and no critical missing context is apparent.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by relating vendor specificity to the 'vendor' parameter and explaining how authentication affects 'includeResolved' and 'timePeriod'. However, this mostly reinterprets existing schema descriptions rather than introducing novel information, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 retrieves vendor incident and outage status for a single monitored vendor, with concrete examples (solarwinds, zscaler, cloudflare). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly scoping to 'one monitored vendor' versus get_all_vendor_incidents, and from list_monitored_vendors by targeting incidents rather than vendor listings.

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 on when to use the tool: for a single vendor's incidents. It also explains behavior differences between anonymous and authenticated calls, implying usage for active incidents versus resolved history. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools for all-vendor incidents or vendor listing, so exclusions are implicit rather than explicit.

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