Get Hazard Filter Options

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the tool being a read-only GET. However, the description adds little beyond stating it returns a JSON array. The conflicting sentence about fetching incident details is misleading but does not contradict annotations directly.

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 description is short but contains a major logical conflict, making it inefficient. The first and second sentences directly contradict each other, reducing clarity.

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?

The description states it returns a JSON array of filter values, which is helpful given no output schema. However, the conflicting sentence about fetching incident details undermines completeness. The API endpoint info is extraneous.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its three parameters. The description only repeats that `project_id` is required, adding no new semantic value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a clear purpose: 'Returns hazards in use for filtering incidents.' However, it immediately contradicts itself by saying 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Incidents by its identifier,' which is a completely different operation. This makes the purpose confusing.

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 mentions 'Required parameters: project_id' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are sibling filter tools (e.g., `get_affected_body_part_filter_options`) but no differentiation.

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