Write the incident report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: the server aggregates data and asks the client model to write it via MCP sampling, requiring sampling capability. It also gives a fallback path. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or whether repeated calls produce identical reports, so it falls just short of a 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the critical operational caveat. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the sampling dependency and fallback well, but it omits the audience parameter entirely and gives no guidance on timestamp formats, leaving a small but meaningful gap for a tool with defaulted, undocumented inputs.

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 explains the dimension parameter's allowed values and that the time window is optional, but it never mentions the audience parameter or timestamp format/syntax, leaving half the parameters semantically undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return a finished markdown incident report for one dimension.' It names the supported dimensions (priority, issue_type, report_channel) and the optional time window, which clearly distinguishes it from data-querying siblings like case_processing_duration and counter_value_distribution.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool and what to do when the client lacks MCP sampling capability: 'without it, call case_processing_duration and counter_value_distribution and write the report yourself.' That names both the prerequisite and concrete alternatives, leaving nothing to inference.

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