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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral context: results are ordered newest first, each notice carries deploy/errors/backtrace/context/session/request data, and backtraces are silently truncated to the first 10 frames unless full_backtraces is set. That truncation default is a non-obvious trait worth flagging.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the resource and ordering, then the filter, the truncation caveat, and the endpoint. No filler, and the key constraint (backtrace cut) is placed before the API reference.

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 no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates the returned fields and the ordering, and it covers the backtrace-truncation behavior. Pagination defaults are left to the schema, so nothing critical is missing, though rate-limit or large-result guidance is absent.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description's notes on version filtering and backtrace limiting largely restate the schema. It adds no format or syntax detail beyond what is structured, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (individual occurrences/notices of one error group), distinguishing it from siblings like airbrake_get_group and airbrake_list_groups. It also names the underlying endpoint, so an agent knows exactly what is being fetched.

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 gives context (newest-first ordering, optional version filtering) and an explicit prerequisite via the required project_id/group_id, but never states when to use this versus airbrake_get_group, airbrake_get_notice_status, or the listing siblings. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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