Api incidents monthly metrics retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety needs no restating. The description adds nothing truthful about behavior and instead implies an export/format capability that the tool name does not support, which would mislead an agent about the response shape.

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?

It is one short sentence, but brevity does not help when the sentence is a leaked internal docstring unrelated to the operation. There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool actually returns.

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 metrics-retrieval endpoint with no output schema, the description should say what metrics are returned (e.g., monthly incident counts, qualification or severity breakdowns) and over what period. It says none of that, leaving an agent unable to judge the return value.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description nevertheless mentions export format choices that do not exist as parameters.

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 'Generic export mixin for CSV/XLSX exports' describes an internal mixin class, not the tool's actual operation (retrieving monthly incident metrics). It actively misdirects an agent toward believing this tool produces CSV/XLSX exports, which is not what the name or route implies.

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 no indication of when to call this versus siblings such as incidents_summary_stats_retrieve, incidents_severity_breakdown_retrieve, or incidents_export_csv_retrieve. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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