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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the returned data (update timeline, affected components), providing context beyond mere safety classification. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but that is acceptable for a simple read operation.

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 concise sentences: the first describes the tool's purpose and output, the second provides the specific API endpoint. Every word is informative, no fluff.

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?

The description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, what it returns (timeline, components), and the API path. It is somewhat vague on 'full state', but sufficient for a simple read tool. No output schema exists, so the description compensates partially.

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 schema already describes both parameters. The description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema. It only references the parameters indirectly via the API path.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a single incident by id', and elaborates on what is returned ('full state including its update timeline and affected components'). This distinguishes it from related tools like list or create.

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 description implies usage by specifying 'by id', which contrasts with list operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, though the sibling names make the distinction clear.

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