pagerduty_list_incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description owes little. It adds no pagination behavior, no rate-limit or API-key caveat, and worse, advertises a "date range" filter that the tool does not actually have — misleading behavioral claims for an agent planning a call.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler — structurally good. But the second sentence spends its limited budget restating schema enums and naming a filter that does not exist, so the compactness does not translate into accuracy.

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 read-only list endpoint with full schema documentation, annotations, and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: purpose and main filters are conveyed. The erroneous date-range claim and the absence of any note on result shape or pagination discipline (default 25, hard cap 100) leave gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 coverage is 100%, so limit, offset, status, api_key, and service_ids are all documented in the schema already. The description repeats the status enum and maps "service" to service_ids (no new value), while promising a date-range filter with no corresponding parameter — a phantom capability that can send an agent down a dead end.

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 PagerDuty incidents") and names the filterable axes, so an agent immediately knows what the tool returns. It does not differentiate itself from the nearby siblings pagerduty_get_incident or pagerduty_list_services, which is what keeps it below a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no alternative named. The agent must infer from the verb alone that this is the bulk/read path versus pagerduty_get_incident for a single incident; the filtering sentence hints at usage but never states a condition for choosing this tool.

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