list_incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but says nothing about pagination behavior, defaults, result limits, ordering, auth requirements, or rate limits — notable given the presence of pageSize/pageOffset parameters with defaults.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably sparse enough that it leans toward under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with zero annotations it should say more about pagination defaults and read-only semantics to be fully self-sufficient.

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 query, pageSize, and pageOffset are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'optional search filtering' loosely maps to query but adds no syntax, format, or behavior beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Datadog incidents') plus the optional filtering capability, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_incident or search_monitors, but the list-vs-get contrast is inferable.

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 guidance on when to use this versus get_incident (single incident) or when the query filter is appropriate. The word 'optional' hints that unfiltered listing is valid, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are named.

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