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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool logs an incident but does not disclose important behavioral aspects such as whether it creates a persistent record, triggers notifications, requires specific permissions, or is reversible. For a mutation tool with 17 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a single, useful process context sentence.

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 tool has 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not address what data is needed for a complete incident log, what the tool returns, or any prerequisites or side effects, making it inadequate for correct and complete invocation.

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 only 12%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the 17 parameters. With many parameters like 'data_losses', 'geographic_spread', and 'economic_impact_eur' left undocumented, the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Log' and specific resource 'new ICT-related incident', and adds process context 'First step in the DORA incident management process'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'incident_log' (likely a read operation) and 'classify_incident' (a later step), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides clear usage context: use as the first step in the DORA incident management process. This implies it should precede classification and other post-incident steps, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related actions.

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