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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a read operation (list). Adds HTTP endpoint and default team behavior—no contradictions, and sufficient transparency for a simple list tool.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds endpoint detail. No filler, front-loaded with essential info.

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?

Tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema). Description covers purpose, endpoint, and parameter. Lacks details on response format, but acceptable given low complexity and sibling tool descriptions.

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%, and description adds extra meaning: explains teamId format, default behavior, and references spike_list_teams for ID lookup, going beyond the schema's description.

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?

Description clearly states 'List currently ACKNOWLEDGED incidents' with verb, resource, and scope (team). Distinguishes from siblings like spike_list_triggered_incidents and spike_list_incidents by specifying the 'acknowledged' status.

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?

Provides when to use (list acknowledged incidents) and how to pass teamId or use default. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, but the sibling context makes it clear.

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