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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true. The description adds the HTTP endpoint (GET /v3/incidents/export) and emphasizes required parameters and ISO8601 format, providing useful context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences: first summarizes purpose and filters, second specifies required parameters and endpoint. No redundant information; every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema, but the tool's list nature implies a straightforward response. The description covers endpoint, required params, and filters. Lacks pagination details, but overall adequate given annotations and high schema coverage.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating required parameters and providing a cross-tool reference for owner_id. This goes slightly beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 the verb (search/list), resource (incidents), and scope (over a time window with filters). It distinguishes from sibling tools like squadcast_get_incident (single incident retrieval) and squadcast_acknowledge_incident (action).

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 highlights required parameters (start_time, end_time, owner_id) and provides a hint to use squadcast_list_teams to find the team ID. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives, but the context is clear for a list operation.

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