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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes endpoint name and current status, and it is implicitly a read operation. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the incident must exist, or error behavior for an unknown dedup_key.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the prerequisite and payload summary. No filler.

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-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and what is returned — enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps are the key format and error semantics.

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 0% for the single dedup_key parameter, so the description must compensate. It usefully tells the agent where to get the key (list_my_incidents), but never describes its format or uniqueness, leaving the parameter only partially documented.

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: 'Full detail for one incident', and distinguishes itself from the sibling list_my_incidents by scoping to a single record. It also notes the payload contents (endpoint name, current status). Clear, though it could more explicitly contrast with describe_endpoint/other describe_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_my_incidents() as the way to obtain the required dedup_key, which is a genuine prerequisite. No when-not conditions or alternatives are stated, but the sourcing guidance is concrete.

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