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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile. The description adds the HTTP GET endpoint and ID-based lookup, which is consistent but does not disclose extra behavioral details such as not-found handling, response format, or auth requirements. With the annotation in place, this is adequate.

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 deliver the core action and the exact endpoint. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded before the optional path detail.

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 simple get-by-id operation with all parameters documented and a read-only annotation, the description is nearly complete. It does not describe the response shape or error behavior, but the phrase 'Get a single incident' sufficiently implies the returned resource for invocation purposes.

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 documents both subdomain and incident_id. The description does not add new parameter meaning beyond mapping them into the endpoint path, but no compensation is needed given the full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single incident'), and the key identifier ('by its id'). The word 'single' naturally distinguishes it from statuspal_list_incidents, and the endpoint template reinforces the exact operation without ambiguity.

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 makes clear this is for fetching one incident when the incident_id is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with listing, creating, updating, and deleting incidents is strongly implied by the wording.

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