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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by naming the response contents (messages and affected components), but says nothing about ordering, volume, or pagination behaviour beyond what the schema already documents.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns. The trailing REST endpoint (GET /incident/list/resolved/{statuspage_id}) is minor filler for an agent that never calls the API directly, but nothing else is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers what comes back (messages and affected components), and pagination nuances live in the schema. For a simple read-only list of two optional parameters, this is close to sufficient; only incident ordering/limits remain unstated.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the paging-until-empty convention and the default status page id. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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 and resource ('Resolved incidents (history)') and enriches it with the returned payload ('their messages and affected components'), which cleanly separates it from the active-incident siblings. It does not, however, name an alternative tool explicitly, so an agent still has to infer the routing from the adjective 'resolved'.

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?

Usage is only implied: reading the list implies you want historical/resolved incidents rather than active ones. There is no when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no named alternative (e.g. statusio_list_active_incidents or statusio_list_incidents), leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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