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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the payload the agent will receive. It omits error behaviour for a missing or invalid incident (fails vs. empty), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The payload contents come first and the usage rule is a punchy closing imperative.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description carries enough — it compensates for the missing return schema by enumerating what comes back. The remaining gap is the undocumented ID parameter and the absence of missing-incident behaviour.

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 0%, so the only parameter, incidentId, is documented nowhere except by its self-evident name. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance (e.g., where to get an ID), which is exactly the gap a 0%-coverage schema leaves.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Get') plus the resource ('an incident's full record') and then enumerates the components of that record: timeline, escalations, runbook results, AI summary, post-mortem. This clearly separates it from the mutation and diagnosis siblings, which the agent can rule out without opening their schemas.

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?

"Call this before acting on an incident" gives a concrete ordering rule that tells the agent when to reach for this tool rather than acknowledge/resolve/diagnose. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions (for example, use list_incidents to find an ID), so it falls short of a 5.

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