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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. Beyond that, the description discloses the return envelope ({incidents[], links:{next,prev}, meta:{total_count}}), which matters because no output schema exists, and it clarifies cursor-based pagination semantics. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth requirements, but the added return-shape context is real value.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then return shape, then parameter usage plus endpoint mapping. No filler and nothing buried.

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 five-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return structure and pagination story, which is what an agent most needs. Auth/subdomain resolution nuance is left to the schema, a minor gap.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the before/after pagination role and the type filter without adding format, allowed values, or interaction rules (e.g. can before and after be combined). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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+resource (list incidents) scoped to a status page, which distinguishes it from the write siblings (create/update/delete_incident) and from get_incident's single-record scope. It does not explicitly name the alternative for single-record retrieval, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives operational guidance on how to use parameters ('use before/after cursors to paginate and type to filter') but never states when to reach for this tool versus get_incident or the other list_* tools. Usage is implied rather than explicitly framed.

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