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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=true, so the description carries the burden of explaining the impact. It states the incident is published to the 'LIVE public status page' and that notify=true emails subscribers, which are critical side effects. This goes beyond the generic destructive hint and gives the agent precise expectations about what will change.

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 sentences, no waste. The main action is front-loaded ('PUBLISHES a new incident to the LIVE public status page'), followed by the type distinction and endpoint. Every sentence adds value, and the structure aids quick comprehension.

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 create tool with 8 parameters, the description covers the key behavior and semantics. It omits response format (no output schema) and does not explicitly mention that scheduled maintenance requires starts_at, but these are captured in the schema. The endpoint is provided, aiding integration context. Slightly more could be said about prerequisites, but the schema compensates.

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 the schema already documents all parameters well. The description reiterates the type enum semantics and endpoint, but adds little beyond the schema. It does not explain edge cases like required starts_at for scheduled maintenance (schema does). Thus, it meets the baseline but does not elevate understanding.

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 ('PUBLISHES') and resource ('a new incident to the LIVE public status page'), making the action unambiguous. It also distinguishes incident types ('major'/'minor' outage vs 'scheduled' maintenance), which sets it apart from siblings like update_incident or delete_incident. The endpoint is explicitly provided, reinforcing the resource.

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 clearly indicates this tool creates an incident and explains the type semantics, which guides when to use it for outages vs maintenance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., 'use update_incident to modify existing incidents') or any prerequisites. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive, and the sibling names imply alternatives without being spelled out.

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