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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses partial-failure behavior ('each service degrades independently if its creds are missing') and that output includes a human summary, but says nothing about read-only nature, credential requirements, rate limits, or how degradation surfaces to the caller.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the COMPOSITE marker and the component list, with the degradation caveat appropriately trailing. No filler, though it could be marginally tighter.

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?

Adequate for an aggregation tool with no output schema: it enumerates the fused data sources, notes the human summary, and flags partial-failure behavior. Missing only the operational preconditions (which credentials are needed) that would fully prepare an agent to call it.

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 urgency and sentry_project are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that (e.g., no note on what happens when urgency is omitted or how sentry_project interacts with the env fallback), 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?

Names a specific composite resource (unresolved Sentry issues + active PagerDuty incidents + on-call) and explicitly labels it COMPOSITE, which cleanly separates it from narrower siblings like sentry_recent_issues and oncall_handoff that cover only one source.

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 'right-now on-call picture' framing implies this is the broad, current-state view and that the single-source siblings are for narrower needs, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over sentry_recent_issues or oncall_handoff, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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