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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real context beyond it: the payload composition (incident, duration, metadata, comments, repeatedIncidents) and the fact that the request is team-scoped. It does not cover error/not-found behavior or pagination of comments, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence carrying purpose, payload shape, and the underlying endpoint mapping, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back, and it flags team scoping for a multi-tenant API. It lacks any note on failure modes (e.g., invalid counterId or team mismatch), which is the only meaningful gap for a simple read tool.

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 both counterId and teamId (including the SPIKE_TEAM_ID default and spike_list_teams hint) are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the counterId lookup but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond it, 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 ('Get'), resource ('a single incident'), and lookup key ('by its counterId'), and names the returned payload shape. This clearly separates it from siblings like spike_list_incidents and spike_get_incident_activity_log.

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 only implied: fetch one incident's full record when you already have a counterId. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to the activity-log sibling for event history, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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