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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real value: it names the underlying endpoint and discloses that re-resolving an already-resolved incident yields HTTP 409, which is precisely the operational nuance an agent needs for retry logic. It stops short of the higher bar because it says nothing about permission requirements or whether a resolution can be undone.

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 sentences, no filler, with the action and end-state front-loaded and the error/endpoint details trailing. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a two-required-parameter mutation with a 100%-covered schema and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what it does, the failure mode on repeat, and the endpoint. Minor gaps remain around auth/permission preconditions and reversibility, which matter for a destructive-state mutation.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including where the incident id comes from. The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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+resource ("Resolve an ongoing incident") and adds the resulting state ("handled/closed"), which goes beyond the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling betterstack_acknowledge_incident, so an agent gets no help telling resolve apart from acknowledge.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent must infer that this is the terminal step after acknowledging. The 409 behavior is useful for repeat-call handling, and the incident_id parameter description points at betterstack_list_incidents for sourcing the id, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative routing is given.

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