fahali_get_active_incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial domain semantics on top: what opens an incident (REDUCE/EXIT or degraded evidence coverage), what closes it (a later verdict), and escalation on non-acknowledgement. The 'empty list means nothing is open, NOT that the market is calm' line is exactly the interpretive guardrail an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then lifecycle, then usage, then the caveat. The lifecycle sentence is dense but every clause (open condition, close condition, escalation) carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and zero required parameters means there is no calling precondition to state. The description covers definition, lifecycle and empty-result semantics; it omits any pointer to the detail/include_withheld projections, which materially change the payload but are documented in the schema.

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 86%, so the schema already documents limit, since, detail, symbols, watch_id, include_resolved and include_withheld well. The description adds no parameter-level guidance of its own — notably it never clarifies how include_resolved interacts with the 'still waiting on' framing, which is the one ambiguity worth addressing. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List monitor-only incidents') with precise scope ('Fahali opened on your watches and is still waiting on'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like fahali_get_incident_timeline (history) and fahali_acknowledge_incident (mutation). An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

'Use it to find what you have not answered' gives a clear situational trigger, and the empty-list caveat prevents a common misread. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (e.g. acknowledge or timeline) for follow-up actions, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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