Get signals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint path and a caveat about incorrect examples, but does not describe pagination, return format, or other behaviors. It adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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 concise, about four sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The caveat about example paths and the reference link are useful but could be trimmed without losing essential meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple GET operation.

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 list operation, the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, but there is no output schema and the description does not mention the return type or possible error conditions. The description is adequate but leaves some gaps, such as what a response contains.

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?

The tool description does not discuss parameters, but the schema's query property includes a detailed description listing all documented parameter names and pagination behavior. With 100% schema coverage, the description is not required to compensate, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the operation 'Get signals' with the HTTP method and path, making the resource and action unambiguous. The plural 'signals' distinguishes it from the sibling xmatters_get_a_signal without explicit contrast.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xmatters_get_a_signal. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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