Api incidents severity breakdown retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral and is actively misleading by framing the tool as an export mechanism when it is a severity breakdown retrieval. It does not contradict the read-only annotation, but it mischaracterizes the operation.

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?

It is short, but that is under-specification, not conciseness — the single sentence describes the wrong thing and would be better replaced entirely with a statement of what the endpoint returns.

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 zero-parameter retrieval endpoint with no output schema, the description must at minimum say what data is returned, especially since there is no output schema to reveal the shape. It says nothing about the severity breakdown, so an agent cannot know what it will get back.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to explain, and the schema is empty.

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 'Generic export mixin for CSV/XLSX exports', which describes an internal code construct, not the tool named 'incidents severity breakdown retrieve'. It never states that the tool returns an incidents severity breakdown, and an agent reading only this would not know what resource it retrieves.

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 tool versus the many sibling incident retrievers (severity_retrieve, status_retrieve, qualifications_breakdown_retrieve, export_csv_retrieve, etc.). The sentence that is present describes an unrelated implementation detail.

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