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

The annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description goes beyond them by disclosing 'unsigned' evidence, recent incidents, and the trust-relevant flags. The caveat 'This does not certify agent safety' adds meaningful behavioral context about the limits of the data. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by field guidance, a caveat, and api_key semantics. It is not padded, though the final sentence about 'owner activation' is dense and somewhat opaque, making it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

With an output schema available and readOnly/openWorld annotations present, the description covers the essential trust-relevant details: unsigned data, recent incidents, caveats, and the optional api_key effect. It does not fully explain the relationship to sibling health tools or clarify the 'owner activation' attribution, but an agent can still invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the optional 'owner api_key' behavior, but it never clarifies the meaning of the required 'agent_id' beyond the schema title 'Agent Id.' The agent_id is inferable from the tool name and context, but the description does not explicitly define it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read unsigned, timestamped operational evidence and recent incidents.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling health tools by framing it as pre-trust-decision evidence and explicitly stating 'This does not certify agent safety.' This gives an agent enough to separate it from status/checks/heartbeat tools.

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?

It tells the agent when to use it ('before a trust decision') and what to inspect ('stale, provisional, open_incident and incidents_truncated'). It also provides a key exclusion by noting the tool does not certify agent safety, though it does not name specific alternative tools or enumerate when not to use it.

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