get_observability_incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds the idea of 'bounded occurrences,' which hints at limiting behavior, but it is vague and does not explain whether the bounds come from the limit/since/until parameters or from the incident itself.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, the target, and the lookup key efficiently without repeating schema or annotation information.

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?

For a read-only fetch tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is adequately complete. It could have been stronger by noting team scoping or explicitly contrasting with list_observability_incidents, but it is not missing critical operational information.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description highlights fingerprint as the key lookup mechanism, which matches the schema, but it adds no substantial meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one incident') with a clear retrieval key ('by fingerprint'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_observability_incidents because it targets a single incident rather than a collection.

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 the tool should be used when the agent has a specific incident fingerprint and wants that incident plus occurrences. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_observability_incidents or mention any exclusion criteria.

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