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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe read-only profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the output is permalinks/raw measurements, but says nothing about pagination, count limits, or behavior when no evidence exists for an incident.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the resource and its scope, with zero filler. Size is well matched to a one-parameter read tool.

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 read-only tool with one required param and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (evidence permalinks). It could be more complete by indicating the return shape or empty-result behavior, but the essentials are present.

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% — the single incident_id parameter is fully documented ('Readable or hash incident ID'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific resource (evidence permalinks) scoped to one incident, and clarifies the content is 'raw measurements' — more informative than a generic 'get incident' verb. It hints at differentiation from detail/report siblings but never names them, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'a journalist can verify' implies a verification use case, giving implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives like get_incident_detail or get_incident_report, which is a notable gap given the many incident-related siblings.

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