Show Hazard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and behavior. The description adds the endpoint method (GET) and that it returns a JSON object, which provides additional context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 three sentences, efficiently covering purpose, usage, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the key action. Could be slightly more concise but no wasted sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return structure, but it only says 'Returns a JSON object'. It also includes `page` and `per_page` parameters without clarifying their role for a single resource fetch. The Incidents/Hazard inconsistency harms completeness.

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, so the description's mention of required parameters adds no new meaning. The schema already describes each parameter. The description does not clarify the purpose of `page` and `per_page` parameters in the context of fetching a single hazard.

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 'Returns the details for a specified Hazard', clearly identifying the verb and resource. However, it erroneously refers to 'specific Incidents' instead of 'specific Hazard', causing slight confusion. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_hazards or delete_hazard, but the singular nature is implied.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Incidents by its identifier', providing basic guidance. It does not mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like list_hazards. The required parameters are stated, but no exclusions or context for selection are given.

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