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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's real contribution is enumerating what the payload contains (diagnosis, affected users, evidence, fix prompt), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of saying anything about permissions, missing-incident errors, or freshness.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core idea ('One incident in full') and then a tight parenthetical enumeration of contents. No filler, though the long nested list about the technical evidence is dense enough to be slightly harder to scan than a shorter clause would be.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well, and the single input parameter is fully documented in the schema. Gaps are minor: nothing about failure modes (invalid or unknown incidentId) or access requirements.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains where incidentId comes from. The description adds no format, ID-shape, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters applies.

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 phrase 'One incident in full' clearly identifies the resource and scope, and the contrast with the sibling list_open_incidents is implied by 'one ... in full'. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the single-vs-list relationship rather than being told.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: this is the detail view for an incident discovered elsewhere, and the schema's 'From list_open_incidents' hints at the source of the id. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative in the description itself.

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