get_incidents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the kinds of incidents, that they are published, and importantly warns that an empty list is not a reliability guarantee. It doesn't mention pagination, sorting, or side effects, but for a read-only fetch it is reasonably transparent.

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 first sentence is dense and informative, and the usage sentence is valuable. However, the middle sentence 'Filter by agent slug, severity, or category' is redundant with the schema and adds no value, so it's not maximally concise.

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 tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema, but the description explains what the incidents include (severity, evidence, vendor-response status) and provides a key caveat about empty lists. It doesn't describe return ordering or pagination, but overall the picture is complete enough for this simple fetch tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates the filter options ('Filter by agent slug, severity, or category') but adds no semantics beyond the schema. No extra meaning, examples, or format details are provided.

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 clearly states the tool fetches published incidents from a failure registry, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on incidents/failures, not scores or trust checks, and adds detail about real observed failures and self-reported incidents.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before delegating to an agent to check for known recent failures.' It also clarifies interpretation of empty results, but does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so not a 5.

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