list_public_status_page_incidents

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: no credentials required, internal updates are filtered out, and a missing or MCP-disabled page returns an error rather than an empty result. Those are meaningful contracts an annotation set cannot express. It stops short of saying how many incidents 'recent' covers, since there is no limit parameter — a small but real unknown for a list tool.

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?

Three dense sentences: the capability first, the routing second, the constraints and error contract last. No restatement of the tool name, no filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does say what comes back — incidents with their public updates, newest first — and it covers auth and error behavior. It does not describe the record shape or the size of the 'recent' window, so an agent can call it correctly but cannot fully predict the response.

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% and the schema already defines slug as the last path segment of /status/<slug>. The description still adds meaning by qualifying the slug as belonging to a 'published' status page and by tying that same parameter to a concrete failure mode (missing page or MCP-disabled).

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (public incidents plus their public updates) scoped to a status-page slug, with ordering (newest first). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_public_status_page and get_incident, which is exactly what an agent needs to pick between the three.

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?

Names the two competing siblings and the condition that selects each: get_public_status_page for current health, get_incident (authenticated) for internal detail. It also implies the exclusion criterion for itself — public-facing content only. The only gap is not mentioning list_public_status_page_maintenance, a minor omission in a large sibling set.

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