Get Functionality Incidents Chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of chart granularity, period semantics, aggregation behavior, or pagination implications for a chart endpoint.

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 only four words, which is concise but reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no front-loading of meaningful information because there is no meaningful information to front-load.

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?

With six parameters, an output schema, and a chart-oriented tool, the description leaves critical gaps: what the chart plots, what 'period' accepts, and how this differs from the uptime chart sibling. The output schema covers return values, but the input-side and selection context remain unexplained.

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 83%, well above the 80% threshold, so the schema itself documents id, include, page_size, page_number, and fields_incidents. The description adds no parameter semantics, but per the baseline rule a 3 is appropriate when the schema carries that load — though 'period' notably lacks a schema description.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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, when to prefer the service/team chart variants, or what prerequisites exist. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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