Retrieve Property Damage

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false), which aligns with the update action described, but the description contradicts the tool's name 'retrieve'. It fails to disclose side effects of the restore operation or behavioral nuances beyond the annotation.

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 redundant and confusing, mixing retrieval, update, and restore concepts. It could be more concise and front-loaded, but instead introduces ambiguity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify return format but only vaguely states 'returns the modified object'. Lacks details on restore behavior, error conditions, or prerequisite state of the property damage.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description restates required params but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and omits explanation of optional parameter incident_id.

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 initially states 'Retrieves specified Recycled Property Damage' but then contradicts by saying 'Use this to update an existing Incidents' and references a PATCH endpoint. The purpose is unclear and potentially misleading given the tool name.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_property_damage, show_property_damage). The description implies it is for updating/restoring, but lacks context on when not to use it.

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