search_incidents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses sorting defaults, filterable fields, allowed statuses, and pagination start, which is useful. However, it mentions a 'user' filter that is not present in the input schema, and it does not disclose output format or whether status accepts an array, leaving gaps.

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 reasonably concise, using short sentences and bullet-like lines. The sort explanation is slightly redundant ('By default sort is descending. But you can change it'), but overall every sentence carries useful information without excessive verbosity.

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?

The description covers sorting, filtering, statuses, and pagination but does not mention the return format or any side effects. The inconsistency around the 'user' filter and missing details on array semantics leave gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the sort parameter (default 'desc', change to 'asc'), enumerates status values, and notes pages start at 0. Yet it omits the array nature of status, fails to explain items_per_page, and introduces a non-existent 'user' parameter, reducing its value.

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 'Search incidents' with a specific verb and resource, and goes on to detail the searchable criteria (sort, filters, pagination). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_asset and the various get_incident_* tools that fetch specific assets or incidents.

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 conveys that this is the tool for searching incidents with filtering and sorting, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_incident_by_issue_number for single-record retrieval, but the verb and resource make the use case apparent.

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