List Incident Custom Field Selections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the one behavior annotations cannot express: the tool is deprecated, which materially affects selection. It says nothing about pagination limits or result shape, but the output schema exists to cover returns.

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?

Two short clauses, with the deprecation warning front-loaded ahead of the purpose statement — exactly the right ordering for an agent deciding whether to call it. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse given the remaining gaps.

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 deprecated read-only list tool with an output schema and 80% param coverage, the deprecation notice plus purpose is the minimum viable set. It still leaves the replacement endpoint unnamed and the 'include' parameter unexplained, which matters if an agent is forced to call it anyway.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents incident_id, page_size, page_number, and fields_incidents. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, and the one undocumented parameter ('include') is left unexplained in both places. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 incident custom field selections'), matching the tool name exactly, and the deprecation note separates it from the live path. It does not name the exact replacement tool (list_incident_form_field_selections) that an agent would need to route to, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent NOT to use this tool and to use form field endpoints instead, which is stronger guidance than most list tools provide. The gap is that 'form field endpoints' is a category, not a named sibling, so the agent must still search the tool list for the right replacement.

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