incident_detections__list_detections_v1

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety and world-access profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating that it returns a list — no mention of pagination behavior, default page size of 50, ordering, or result-size concerns for a potentially large collection endpoint.

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?

A single short line, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is mildly redundant in restating the resource three ways (name, endpoint path, and "Return a list of all the [detection]s"), but there is no padding or noise.

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 six optional, fully documented parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. The missing piece is disambiguation from the v2 sibling and any note on pagination workflow, which the schema covers only at the parameter level.

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%, and the parameter docs are unusually thorough (boundary semantics for startTime/endTime, pagination coercion rules, local projection for `fields`). Baseline 3 applies since the description contributes no parameter meaning of its own beyond the vague word "criteria."

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List detections") plus the underlying endpoint (GET /v1/detections), so an agent knows exactly what operation it performs. The gap is differentiation: it never explains how it differs from the sibling incident_detections__list_detections_v2 or incident_detections__get_detection_v1.

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 only usage signal is the phrase "matching criteria," which implies filtering without saying what criteria exist or when to prefer this over the v2 variant or over `latest_detections`. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection guidance despite several close siblings.

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