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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full register' and filters but does not state whether the tool is read-only, how results are returned (pagination, structure), whether it requires authorization, or what 'full' means. The behavior beyond filtering is left opaque.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and key options. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a high-level overview of filters but omits crucial context such as the return value structure, pagination behavior, whether filters are combinable, and any response format. An agent could select the tool but would lack sufficient information to handle its output confidently.

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?

The description names all four parameters as filters, which aligns with the schema properties. However, it adds no detail beyond the property names: 'search' is ambiguous (matches what? incident ID, summary?), and the enums are left entirely to the schema. Given zero schema description coverage, the description only minimally compensates.

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 states the resource ('full incident register') and its filtering capabilities, clearly distinguishing it from create/update siblings like log_incident and from statistical tools like incident_stats. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', making the operation slightly less direct.

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 the tool is for browsing/filtering the incident register via the listed filters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as incident_stats or final_report. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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