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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by sketching the return shape (incidents array, totals, pagination), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It stops short of noting auth requirements, rate limits, or whether results are default-ordered, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and the return-shape and endpoint details are appended compactly. No wasted prose, though the late 'Spike: GET /incidents' fragment is slightly awkward and could be trimmed without loss.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully fills the gap by naming the envelope keys and per-incident fields. For a 3-param, zero-required read tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema, this is nearly complete; only the sibling-routing guidance is missing.

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 the schema itself documents page, perPage, and teamId (including the 24-char hex format and the SPIKE_TEAM_ID fallback) thoroughly. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, 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 and resource ('List incidents for a team') and the underlying endpoint (GET /incidents, team-scoped). It is distinguishable from most siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the filtered variants (spike_list_acknowledged_incidents, spike_list_triggered_incidents) — the agent must infer that this is the unfiltered list. Clear, but not sibling-aware.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With three sibling list_* tools covering acknowledged and triggered subsets, the agent gets no help deciding which list tool to reach for. The team-scoping note lives in the schema, not the description.

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