Get incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the kinds of failure details returned and the relationship to surrounding stats. No pagination behavior is disclosed, but the output schema covers return shape, so the additional context is sufficient.

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?

Three focused sentences with no filler. The opening sentence states the core purpose, the second gives common use cases, and the third targets a specific follow-up tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only incidents/history tool with rich annotations, a fully self-describing schema (100% parameter coverage), and an output schema, this description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and how it relates to get_stats_hourly.

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%, with clear descriptions for both monitorId and page including defaults and references to list_monitors. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the full semantic burden.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Read the downtime history of one monitor') and enumerates the concrete data included (start/end times, duration, HTTP status, error text, probe). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_stats_hourly and get_monitor.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('This is the tool for "what happened" and "how often does this break"') and gives a specific follow-up direction to get_stats_hourly for response-time shapes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_monitor for current status, so it misses the 'when not to use' edge.

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