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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description still adds substantive behavior: required session, X-Organization-Id and CSRF, a 50-item page cap, the cursor idiom, and a dedup rule ('Repeated observations do not duplicate a notice'). It also flags interpretation caveats (issuance doesn't prove installation, DNS records don't prove authentication). Most of the remaining text is data semantics rather than tool behavior, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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?

The description is an unstructured run-on of domain-semantics statements with no paragraphing or priority order; the actual purpose appears only after the auth prerequisites. Several sentences are cryptic ('Send the last event number as before', 'A first observed risk is an initial incident') and not obviously actionable for invoking the tool.

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 read-only tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, page limit, pagination, dedup, and the meaning of the incident kinds an agent will see. It is reasonably complete, though it never sketches the returned event structure, which a no-output-schema tool could benefit from.

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 'id' and 'before' are already documented and the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining how to drive 'before' operationally (send the last event number to get the next page) and by stating the page-size cap, which the schema does not.

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 second sentence gives a concrete verb + resource: 'Read up to 50 private incidents with notice delivery,' naming the scope (private incidents) and the cap. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as domain_status, check_domain, or acknowledge_domain_event, and the core purpose is buried behind an auth sentence.

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?

There is real usage guidance for pagination ('Send the last event number as before for the next page'), but nothing about when to choose this tool over domain_status/check_domain/acknowledge_domain_event, and no conditions or exclusions for its use. Usage is implied by the read framing rather than stated.

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