search-incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., query fields) but does not contradict annotations. For a read-only search tool, the description is adequate but does not elaborate on pagination behavior or result limits beyond schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or fluff. Maximally concise.

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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return format (e.g., list of incident objects) or how to combine query terms. However, annotations and schema cover safety and pagination, so it is minimally adequate.

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 100%, so the description adds little value beyond the schema. It mentions query fields (state, severity, title keywords) which align with the schema's query description. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 'Search' and the resource 'Datadog incidents', and specifies searchable fields (state, severity, title keywords). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-incidents' which may also list incidents, but the intent is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'get-incident' or 'get-incidents'. It lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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