Api incidents retrieve

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful non-obvious behavior: unauthorized related fields are masked. However, it does not clarify what masking means in practice or what happens if the caller lacks access, so the added context is useful but partial.

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?

The single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, and the masking detail is valuable. However, it is arguably too terse for a retrieve tool, omitting the resource identity that would make the sentence fully useful.

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 retrieve-by-id endpoint with no output schema, the description should at least connect the id to an incident and clarify the return semantics. It instead refers only to 'a single object' and a masking rule, leaving key context for correct invocation incomplete.

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 0%, and the description says nothing about the sole parameter 'id'. While a required string 'id' is relatively self-evident, the description does not confirm that it identifies the incident or explain any format expectations, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 says it returns 'a single object' but never names the resource as an incident. The tool name and title imply incidents, but the description itself remains vague about what object is retrieved, so an agent must rely on external naming to distinguish it from siblings like incidents_list or incidents_object_retrieve.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this retrieve endpoint versus incidents_list, incidents_object_retrieve, or incidents_cascade_info_retrieve. The description only states what happens on invocation, not the selection context or alternatives.

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