list_incidents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'read-only' and notes the data is synthetic and seeded, which sets expectations about data type and side effects. It does not describe the return shape, but for a simple parameterless list operation this is reasonable disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the read-only and no-filter constraints are stated immediately afterward. Every word adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 simple list tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It communicates what is listed, the nature of the data, the lack of filters, and the read-only safety profile.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'No filters,' which prevents an agent from assuming hidden query options. This matches the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource as 'seeded synthetic payment incidents.' It also reinforces the scope with 'No filters' and 'catalog is small on purpose,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_logs and retry_job without ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool is read-only and takes no filters, making it obvious this is for fetching the full small catalog of seeded incidents. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context strongly implies the appropriate usage and signals that filtering is not supported here.

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