list_incidents_by_customer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it lists open incidents. It does not disclose pagination behavior (limit, page_key), effect of include_comments, sorting, or any limits. Minimal transparency beyond basic operation.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded. However, it is too minimal given the number of parameters; additional brief explanations could improve clarity without significant bloat.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain pagination, optional filters, or what 'open incidents' entails. Significant gaps reduce an agent's ability to use 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 description coverage is 0%. The description only mentions id, email, and username as identifiers, ignoring the three other parameters (include_comments, limit, page_key). No explanation of their purpose or constraints.

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 action ('List') and resource ('open incidents') and identifies the customer via id, email, or username. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_incidents_by_agent or list_incidents_by_asset.

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 implies use when needing incidents by customer, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tools among the many siblings. It also fails to clarify that at least one identifier (id, email, username) should be provided.

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