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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: default sort order (newest first), a total count, and nextCursor-based pagination.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the filter list is front-loaded before the return-shape and routing notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, yet the description still summarizes them usefully for an 11-parameter, zero-coverage schema. The only gaps are the undocumented sort options and the limit default/max, which an agent would need to infer.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it maps most filters clearly (attack type, victim type, country, outcome, incident year, publication date range, keyword) plus cursor pagination via nextCursor. It omits meaningful detail on sort (4 enum values) and limit (max 25), leaving those parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (verified, published Voice Clone Scam Pulse incidents) and enumerates the filter dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_incident by noting that search returns compact summaries versus full detail.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_incident 'with a slug for full detail', which is a clear alternative-and-condition pairing. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. when search is unnecessary) or prerequisites, but the context is clear.

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