Show Property Damage

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

The description adds minimal behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which already communicate safety. The description only adds that it returns a JSON object and the HTTP method, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination behavior or response size.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that front-load the main action. It includes relevant details like required parameters and endpoint, but the endpoint information may be redundant for an AI agent. Overall, it is well-structured without unnecessary verbosity.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of comprehensive schema and annotations, the description is minimally complete. It explains the primary purpose and required parameters but does not elaborate on optional parameters (page, per_page) or return value structure. The output schema is absent, but the description mentions returning a JSON object, which suffices.

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 covers all 5 parameters with 100% description coverage. The description only lists the required parameters without adding semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a 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 clearly states that the tool returns a specific Property Damage record by its identifier. It specifies required parameters and the API endpoint, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_property_damages or update_property_damage, which would help an agent choose correctly.

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 instructs to 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Incidents by its identifier,' which implies its use case. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like list_property_damages for listing multiple records.

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