list-status-page-degradations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose that this is a read-only operation, lacks any authorization or rate limit context, and does not describe pagination behavior or result format beyond parameter names.

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, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes key details succinctly.

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 list tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not describe the response structure, default pagination, or sorting behavior, which would aid an agent in processing results.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds minimal value by stating the filtering is optional, which is baseline for such coverage.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'degradation incidents', and the scope 'across status pages'. It also mentions optional filtering, distinguishing it from singular get tool and other CRUD tools for degradation 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 implies usage for enumerating multiple degradation incidents with optional filters. It does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context from sibling tools (get-status-page-degradation for single, create/delete/update for mutations) makes it clear enough.

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