List Incident Alert Recipients

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds pagination details (page, per_page) and pagination metadata in response. No contradictions, but no additional behavioral context beyond minimal.

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?

Multiple sentences with clear front-loading, but includes redundant/inaccurate reference to 'Incidents'. Could be trimmed and corrected.

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?

No output schema exists; the description lacks accurate return structure (e.g., fields of each alert recipient). It inaccurately states it returns Incidents, failing to describe the actual response. This gap leaves the agent underinformed.

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 has 100% coverage; description highlights required parameters and pagination control, adding modest value. It does not mention the sort parameter. 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 states it returns Incident Alert Recipients, but then incorrectly says 'Use this to enumerate Incidents', creating confusion about the actual resource. Purpose is partially clear but undermined by inconsistency.

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?

Provides usage context: paginated overview, finding IDs, filtering. However, it does not mention when to avoid using this tool (e.g., for single recipient retrieval) nor suggest alternatives. The mention of 'Incidents' is misleading.

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