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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the backing endpoint (GET /v1/incident/search/{incidentId}), but says nothing about not-found behavior, response shape, or whether the id is an internal or external identifier.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing endpoint reference is slightly redundant for an agent that only needs selection and invocation cues, but it costs little.

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 one-parameter read tool whose readOnlyHint covers the safety profile and which has no output schema, the description is sufficient to select and invoke it. Only the lack of routing guidance against the markdown/get-list siblings keeps it from being complete.

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%, so the single incidentId parameter is already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The phrase 'by its id' adds no meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 verb and resource ('Get a single incident by its id'), which clearly separates it from the list-style sibling and identifies the id-keyed lookup. It does not explicitly name the nearest sibling (allquiet_get_incident_markdown), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 only usage signal is the implied 'by its id' precondition; there is no statement of when to prefer this over allquiet_get_incident_markdown or allquiet_list_incidents. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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