get_incident_by_number

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a fetch (implying read-only), but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., not-found handling), pagination, or any side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name and schema.

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 with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the example is integrated naturally.

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 one simple parameter and no nested objects, and given the tool's name implies the return type (the incident itself), the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation. It does not explicitly state the return format, but the omitted details are minor for such a straightforward getter.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides a concrete example format ('INC0010001'), which adds meaningful guidance beyond the raw schema. It lacks details like validation rules or behavior on invalid input, but for a single required parameter, this is helpful.

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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a single incident'), and the key identifier ('by its number'), with an example format. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_incidents (which fetches multiple) and create/update/resolve (which mutate).

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 implies usage when you have a specific incident number, and the contrast with list_incidents is self-evident. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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