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

The description discloses that the tool returns a full operator-update timeline and includes an error sample, which are behavioral details not covered by the readOnlyHint annotation. Since the annotation already declares read-only safety, the description adds useful context without redundancy. No contradiction with annotations.

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 remarkably concise: one sentence lists the returned fields, and a second word 'Read-only' conveys safety. Every word adds value, and the sentence structure is front-loaded with the primary object. No filler or repetition.

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 simple single-parameter tool with an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description fully captures what the tool returns and its read-only nature. The schema covers the id parameter, and the description enumerates the key result components, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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%: the id parameter is described and sourced from list_incidents or get_org_health. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 for high coverage 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 description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a single incident with specific fields ('affected monitor, severity, open/resolved times, error sample, and the full operator-update timeline'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_incidents (which lists incidents) and get_incident_metrics (which focuses on metrics), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage context is implied: use when you need details of one incident. The schema comment adds that the id comes from list_incidents or get_org_health, which hints at workflow. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' or clear exclusion of alternatives, so the guidance is not as strong as the calibration example that names an alternative tool.

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