search_incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that only a compact summary is returned rather than the full record, that active_only defaults to excluding Resolved/Closed incidents, that encoded_query overrides all other filters, that order_by defaults to newest first, and that limit caps at 20. These are genuine behavioral insights beyond the schema.

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 long but every line earns its place. It is front-loaded with the purpose and primary usage rule, then organized into a scannable parameter list, then closed with explicit sibling alternatives. There is no filler or repetition.

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 complex 12-parameter, all-optional tool with no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains each parameter, return shape, defaults, overrides, and when to use sibling tools. Since an output schema exists, return-field details need not be repeated, and nothing essential appears missing.

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%, but the description documents all 12 parameters with extra meaning: valid state values, priority comparison syntax, exact/partial matching semantics for cmdb_ci, ISO timestamp format, encoded_query precedence, order_by syntax, and limit constraints. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find incidents matching a filter', and identifies itself as the primary discovery tool. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like get_incident, find_similar_incidents, and get_incident_stats, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool is for.

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?

Includes explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this whenever you need to locate one or more incidents and you do not already have an exact incident number.' It also names precise alternatives and their conditions: prefer get_incident for known numbers, find_similar_incidents for resemblance-based searches, and get_incident_stats for counts. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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