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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real consequence context: the incident is published to a LIVE public page and notify=true emails subscribers. That tells the agent the action is externally visible and hard to walk back. It does not cover reversibility, permissions, or rate limits, so not a full 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the most decision-relevant fact (live public publication plus notify behavior). The type-semantics sentence duplicates the schema, which is minor waste but keeps the whole definition scannable.

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 an 8-parameter create tool with no output schema, this covers the key question an agent faces: what publishing actually does and who gets notified. It omits auth/permission requirements and what the call returns, but nothing is actively misleading or missing from the schema.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the same type and notify semantics the description restates. The description adds essentially no syntax or format detail beyond structured data, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 states a specific verb and resource with its blast radius: 'PUBLISHES a new incident to the LIVE public status page'. 'New incident' implicitly separates it from statuspal_create_incident_update and statuspal_update_incident. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it falls just under the top tier.

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 implied rather than stated: you call it when you need a new incident published, and the 'LIVE public status page' framing hints that it is externally visible. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to update_incident for existing incidents, nor any prerequisite/permission note.

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