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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description usefully adds that the output is a markdown rendering rather than structured JSON, but discloses nothing about error behavior for invalid ids, permissions, or size limits.

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 tight sentence plus the backing API route, with the core purpose front-loaded. The endpoint string is marginally useful for traceability but is the only slightly non-earning element.

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 trivial one-parameter read endpoint with no output schema, the description conveys both input and output shape (markdown by incident id), which is sufficient to call it correctly. Only the sibling-routing detail is missing.

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% with a single, self-explanatory parameter. The description's 'by its id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own 'The incident id (required).' 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 verb+resource+format: 'Get a markdown rendering of a single incident by its id'. The format distinction (rendering vs. raw data) implicitly separates it from allquiet_get_incident, but the sibling is never named, so the agent must infer the difference.

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 parenthetical '(useful for pasting into a doc or chat)' gives an implied use case, which is more than nothing. However it never states when to prefer this over allquiet_get_incident or list_incidents, leaving the choice to inference.

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