incident_detections__list_detections_v2

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the annotated endpoint: no pagination behavior (despite pageSize/pageToken params), no note that the local 'fields' projection happens after fetch, and no indication of result volume or rate limits. It mostly restates the name and HTTP route.

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 compact sentence with no filler paragraphs, and the operation is front-loaded. There is minor redundancy in repeating both 'List detections' and 'GET /v2/detections' and 'Return a list of all the [detection]s', which says the same thing three ways.

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 six-parameter list endpoint with no output schema and several similar siblings, the description is too thin: it does not explain what a detection is, how pagination defaults work, or that results can be scoped by tenant or time. The schema carries the parameter detail, but the agent gets no behavioral or selection context from the description itself.

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 all six parameters are fully documented in the input schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description contributes no additional meaning about filters, time ranges, or the projection parameter, but it is not required to given the rich schema.

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 detections, GET /v2/detections), so the basic operation is clear. However, it does not distinguish this from close siblings such as incident_detections__list_detections_v1, latest_detections, or incident_detections__get_detection_v2, and 'matching criteria' is left entirely undefined. The purpose is adequate but an agent cannot tell when v2 is the right choice over 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement about prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer everything from the name and endpoint path, including whether this is a filtered search or a full listing.

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