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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, but the description adds material behavior the structured fields cannot convey: public visibility to every visitor immediately, status mutation of affected components, silent-by-default notification channels, and the return of the new incident id. That is exactly the added context the annotations do not supply.

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?

Five short sentences, zero filler, with the write classification and public-visibility warning front-loaded before the notification caveat and the endpoint. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 15-parameter public-facing mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical danger (immediate public exposure, silent notifications) and the return value. It omits mention of the default state value and required fields, but those are fully documented in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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%, so a 3 is the baseline; the description earns extra by explaining semantic intent beyond the field names — that notify_* flags must be explicitly enabled for any notification to fire, and that scope is expressed either as all_infrastructure_affected or as component-container pairs. It does not add format detail for name/details/status or explain the state vs status distinction.

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 ('open a new incident on the PUBLIC status page') plus the side effect (sets affected component status), which cleanly separates it from statusio_update_incident, statusio_resolve_incident, and the maintenance siblings. The 'WRITE:' prefix immediately classifies the operation as a mutation.

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?

Clearly frames the context: new public incident, notifications off by default unless notify_* flags are switched on, and how to declare affected scope via all_infrastructure_affected or infrastructure_affected pairs. It does not explicitly say when to prefer statusio_schedule_maintenance or statusio_update_incident instead, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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