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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the response contains ids only, no detail payload — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size for a potentially large collection.

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?

One tight sentence with the scope ('ids only, no details') front-loaded, followed by the next-step pointer and the endpoint. Little waste, though the raw endpoint path is of marginal value to an agent that already has the schema.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, output shape, and the follow-up call. The main omission is whether results span all status pages or just the connected default, and whether the list is paginated.

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% for the single statuspage_id parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning and the default behavior. The description only echoes the parameter indirectly via the endpoint path 'GET /incidents/{statuspage_id}', adding nothing new.

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 ('The ids of all active and resolved incidents') and clarifies scope with 'ids only, no details'. It implies a superset relationship with the narrower siblings statusio_list_active_incidents/statusio_list_resolved_incidents, but never names them, so the distinction requires inference.

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 ('a quick way to see which incidents exist') and routes the agent to statusio_get_incident when full details are needed. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over the active-only or resolved-only list siblings, so there is no explicit exclusion.

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