Get on-call summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the pagination note ('results are not automatically combined') from the schema, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not go beyond that.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, includes the API path and a reference link, and contains no redundant content. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only GET tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not describe the return format or what the summary contains, which might be expected given no output schema, but the reference link partially compensates.

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 the query object and its properties are already well documented (e.g., comma-joined arrays, supported parameter names). The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the endpoint reference.

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 'Get on-call summary' and gives the exact API endpoint (GET /api/xm/1/on-call-summary), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'xmatters_get_who_is_on_call', which appears related, so it misses the top score.

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 tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'get_who_is_on_call' likely serves a similar purpose, but the description does not mention it or provide any selection criteria.

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