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 adds value by enumerating the kind of content returned (evidence links, domains, blocking methods, timeline), which stands in for the missing output schema. It says nothing about behavior for an unknown/expired incident ID, which would be the natural next detail.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource and then lists the payload contents. No filler, no redundancy, nothing to trim.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description adequately sketches what the caller receives. It is close to complete; the only thing missing is a note on failure behavior or whether all listed sections are always populated.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including both the human-readable (IR-2026-0142) and hash ID forms. The description only refers to 'a specific incident' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific censorship incident') and enumerates the content returned (evidence links, affected domains, blocking methods, timeline). It does not, however, differentiate this tool from close siblings like get_incident_evidence, get_incident_report, or get_incidents_since, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from names alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools for related data. The sibling set contains at least four other incident-oriented tools, so failing to route between them is a real gap rather than a minor omission.

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