Get who is on call

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds the endpoint and the note that there are no body fields, but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or any other runtime characteristics. Since the description carries some weight but is minimal, a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the purpose, and includes the endpoint, a note on body fields, and a reference link. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 GET tool with rich schema and annotations, the description is adequate, but it lacks any note on how this differs from the similar get_on_call_summary sibling, which is a meaningful gap for an agent trying to select the correct tool. The output format is not described, but no output schema exists, so that is less critical.

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 input schema provides a detailed description for the query object, listing documented parameter names and pagination behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool retrieves who is on call, with a specific resource (the /on-call endpoint). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool xmatters_get_on_call_summary, which likely serves a similar purpose, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 get_on_call_summary. It simply states the action without any exclusions, prerequisites, or hints about which tool fits a given scenario.

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