vendor_incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that histories vary in depth ('weeks to years depending on what the vendor's page exposes') and that data is sourced from the vendor's status page, which implies external variability. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when a vendor is not found.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output fields; the second adds a useful caveat about data availability. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, ordering, and the variability of history depth. It lacks explicit notes on error cases or pagination, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness.

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 four parameters. The description adds context about the data source and ordering but does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns one vendor's incident history as posted on its status page, with specific fields (title, state, impact, timestamps, update text, URL) and ordering (newest first). This distinguishes it from siblings like vendor_status (current status) and vendor_resolution_times (aggregated metrics).

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 implies this is for historical incident data from a vendor's status page, which differentiates it from vendor_status (current status) and vendors_down_now (current outages). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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