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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the exact response envelope, pagination cursors, total_count, and the HTTP endpoint. This gives the agent a clear model of what the call returns and how pagination behaves.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: what it does, what it returns, how to paginate/filter, and the underlying endpoint. No filler or redundant restatement of 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?

The description covers the return format, pagination, filtering, and endpoint despite there being no output schema. It is sufficient for a 5-param, zero-required read-only tool, though it omits details like valid type values or explicit auth notes, leaving a small 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 coverage is 100%, so the description need not repeat parameter meanings. It adds modest guidance by explaining that before/after are pagination cursors and type is a filter, but this largely restates what the schema already provides rather than adding new semantics.

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 the specific action 'List incidents' and the resource scope 'for a status page,' matching the tool name while clearly distinguishing it from sibling incident mutation tools and other list tools. The return shape and endpoint further identify this as the read-only incident listing operation.

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?

Provides clear context: this is for listing incidents on a status page and explains how to paginate with before/after cursors and filter with type. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the intended use is unambiguous from the description and sibling context.

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