List Incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the schema: page_size <= 100 and that out-of-bounds values are clamped and reported rather than rejected. It does not discuss result ordering defaults or result volume, but an output schema exists, so that gap is acceptable.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the WHEN TO USE block scans quickly, with the alternative and the cap rule placed last where they belong. The four bullets overlap somewhat (incident response, handoff, and post-incident analysis all reduce to "filter recent incidents"), so a little length is not fully earned.

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 12-param, zero-required list tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, selection criteria, the main filter families, and pagination caps. It stops short of explaining sort semantics or how comma-separated multi-value filters combine, but those are handled in the schema descriptions.

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 schema already documents all 12 params including the sort enum and comma-separated ID fields; baseline is 3. The description reinforces the filter families (date-range, team, service, severity, status) and the page_size cap/clamping rule, but adds nothing about `sort`, `page_number`, or `custom_field_selected_option_ids` that the schema does not already say.

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 opening line gives a specific verb and resource ("List incidents with structured filters") and immediately frames the scope as structured filtering rather than text search. The closing line names the sibling it is not ("prefer search_incidents"), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Four concrete WHEN TO USE scenarios (incident response, shift handoff, post-incident analysis, audit) plus an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it ("For simple text searches, prefer search_incidents instead"). The only wrinkle is that the schema also exposes a free-text `query` param, which slightly blurs the stated split, but the routing guidance itself is unambiguous.

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