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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's main added value is the endpoint mapping and team scoping. It does not disclose return volume, pagination, ordering, or result caps, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns for a list endpoint with no output schema.

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 tightly packed sentences: the status definition is front-loaded where it matters most, and the endpoint annotation is compact. The 'Spike: GET /incidents/acknowledged (team-scoped)' clause slightly restates the already-stated team scope, but earns its place as implementation traceability.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only lister with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually (acknowledged, unresolved incidents for one team). Only pagination/ordering behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 there is only one optional parameter, whose description already documents the 24-char hex format, the x-team-id header, the SPIKE_TEAM_ID default, and the spike_list_teams route. The description only echoes 'team-scoped' and adds no syntax or format detail, 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), a precisely defined resource (currently ACKNOWLEDGED incidents, glossed as 'being worked on, not yet resolved'), and a scope (team). The status gloss distinguishes it from the sibling status-filtered listers spike_list_incidents and spike_list_triggered_incidents without the agent needing to open their schemas.

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 parenthetical definition of ACKNOWLEDGED gives clear selection context among the sibling list tools, and '(team-scoped)' tells the agent this returns one team's incidents. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g. 'for all incidents use spike_list_incidents') or stating exclusions, so it is clear-but-not-routing.

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