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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by stating the endpoint and clarifying that it returns currently triggered incidents. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional context beyond the structured fields.

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 with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, the endpoint hint is brief, and every word adds value. No wasted characters.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should ideally mention what fields or structure the returned incidents have. It only says 'list' without specifying return format or pagination. For a simple tool with one optional parameter, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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% with a clear description for teamId. The description adds nuance by noting the optionality and the default behavior, as well as referencing spike_list_teams for listing team IDs. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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?

The description clearly states it lists 'TRIGGERED (open, unacknowledged) incidents' for a team, specifying the exact resource and verb. It distinguishes from siblings like spike_list_acknowledged_incidents and spike_list_incidents by emphasizing the 'active fire-fighting queue'.

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 description implies usage context (the active fire-fighting queue) and the parameter hint for teamId helps scope. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though sibling tool names provide implicit differentiation.

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