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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true. Description adds context by stating it modifies live status-page data and can notify subscribers, and mentions the HTTP method and path. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 covering purpose, key parameters, and the API endpoint. It efficiently conveys information without fluff, though the use of all caps for keywords is slightly overdone.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description mentions it returns the created incident and lists all optional parameters. It lacks error handling or rate limit context, but overall is adequate for a create tool with destructive hint.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes optional parameters but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. It groups parameters helpfully but adds little value.

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 tool creates a new incident, modifies live status-page data, and lists key parameters. It distinguishes from sibling creation tool (instatus_create_maintenance) by specifically mentioning incident.

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 implies usage for creating incidents but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like instatus_create_maintenance or instatus_update_incident. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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