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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, indicating it may have destructive effects. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating "may trigger alerting/paging" and specifying the API endpoint (POST /v1/incident), providing behavioral context not covered by annotations alone.

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 concise with two sentences plus a note about the endpoint. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 8 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects (triggering paging, parameter validation) and provides examples for severity. It lacks mention of return value or authentication prerequisites, but overall it is fairly complete for agent usage.

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 parameters are documented. The description adds meaning by explaining that status and severity are free-form and validated against account configuration, and provides common examples. This adds value beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 "Creates a new incident on the LIVE account", specifying the action (create) and resource (incident), and distinguishes from sibling tools like update_incident or list_incidents. It also notes potential alerting/paging, adding context.

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 context by warning about alerting/paging and advising to confirm valid status/severity values with the account configuration. It implicitly indicates when to use (to create a new incident) but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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