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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, but the description adds real value beyond annotations: it defines what 'TRIGGERED' means as a state (open, unacknowledged) and discloses the underlying API route and its team-scoping. It stops short of describing pagination, ordering, or result volume.

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 compact clauses with zero filler; the state definition (the routing-critical detail) is front-loaded and the API reference trails it as supporting context.

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 read-only, no-required-param list tool with no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient: state semantics, team scoping, and the sibling reference for team ids are all present. Only result ordering/limits are unspecified, which is 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 coverage is 100% and the sole teamId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default-fallback behavior and the spike_list_teams pointer. The description only echoes the team scoping already stated there, so 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) and resource (triggered incidents) plus the exact state filter: 'currently TRIGGERED (open, unacknowledged)'. This definition of the state set is what separates it from siblings like spike_list_acknowledged_incidents and spike_list_incidents without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context via 'for a team — the active fire-fighting queue', which tells an agent this is the unacknowledged-work view. It does not explicitly name when to prefer a sibling instead (e.g. spike_list_acknowledged_incidents for the triaged queue), leaving that inference to the reader.

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