list_status_page_incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb "List" implies a non-mutating read operation and the incident-publication distinction adds useful domain context, but the description does not mention pagination, response shape, default filtering behavior, or any access requirements.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately provides the most important disambiguation from internal incidents. There is no filler or redundant restating of schema information.

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 list operation with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the key domain distinction that could otherwise confuse an agent, though it does omit minor operational details like pagination or default filtering behavior.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters meaningfully. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, matching the baseline expectation for fully covered schemas.

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: "List the incident publications on a status page." It also explicitly distinguishes these customer-facing incident publications from the internal `incidents` the monitoring system opens, which clearly separates this tool from the related `list_incidents` sibling.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this to list customer-facing incident publications, not internal monitoring incidents. It does not explicitly name `list_incidents` or provide a direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule, so it falls just short of a 5.

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