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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read. The description adds what the payload contains (state, times, public link), which is useful context, but it does not cover error behavior for a missing notice or how the include embedding changes the response.

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 compact sentences; the payload summary is front-loaded and the API mapping follows. No filler, though the 'Sorry: GET...' line is marginally redundant for an agent.

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-read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description's summary of returned fields (state, times, public link) adequately fills the return-value gap, leaving only error/not-found behavior unstated.

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%, so all three parameters including the include enum are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so 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 ('Get one notice') and clarifies scope by noting it covers both incident and maintenance notices. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_notices and get_notice_update, though it doesn't name siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'get one notice by id' framing and the endpoint path, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. siblings (e.g., list_notices for enumerating, get_notice_update for a single update) or when to prefer the include parameter.

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