search_incidents

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It indicates a read-only search operation via 'Search' and notes the 'fictitious' nature of the data, but it doesn't elaborate on side effects, pagination, or error handling.

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 concise sentence that gets to the point immediately. No wasted words, and the core purpose 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with four parameters. It doesn't explain what 'query' refers to, what severity values are accepted, or how site_ids should be provided. It also doesn't differentiate from sibling search tools beyond the resource type.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the four parameters (limit, query, severity, site_ids). The agent must infer parameter semantics entirely from the schema, which only gives types and defaults, leaving meaning ambiguous.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'fictitious HSE incidents', making it distinct from sibling tools that search knowledge and procedures. The mention of 'authorized site scope' adds a specific context.

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 provides context that the search is limited to the caller's authorized sites, which informs when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it's clear but lacks exclusions.

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