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

Annotations establish that this is a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful detail by specifying exactly which fields are written on the journal business object, giving the agent a clearer model of the side effect than the annotations alone.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the field-level detail is compact and useful without being redundant with the schema.

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 simple write tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it writes. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning that the rec_id identifies the incident to attach the note to, but the schema already communicates that.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The description adds marginal value by noting that Notes, Summary, and ParentLink_RecID are written, but it does not elaborate on parameter formats or relationships beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: 'Create a journal note on an incident.' It also names the affected fields (Notes, Summary, ParentLink_RecID), which clearly distinguishes this write tool from the read-oriented get_incident and the state-changing resolve_incident.

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?

Usage is implied by the action described: use this tool when you need to add a journal note to an incident. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to resolving an incident beyond the obvious difference in purpose.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by disclosing exactly what the caller will receive: subject, symptom, category, status, requester, and ownership fields. No behavioral contradictions with the annotations are present.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, then lists the meaningful returned fields. There is no filler or redundancy; every phrase earns its place.

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?

With a simple one-parameter input, a full output schema available, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. The return-field list is a useful supplement, and no critical behavior is missing.

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 schema already fully documents the sole parameter rec_id as an Ivanti incident RecId (GUID), with 100% coverage. The description merely repeats 'by RecId' and adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Load') with a clear resource ('full Ivanti incident') and the lookup key ('RecId'). It also lists the principal returned fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling mutation tools add_note and resolve_incident.

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 read-oriented verb 'Load' makes it clear this is the retrieval tool, especially alongside the sibling tools that modify or act on incidents. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the context and name strongly imply it is for reading incident details rather than taking action.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: it reads Status first, no-ops if already closed, and may write either Status or a Quick Action. This enriches the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second covers idempotent preconditions, and the third defines the write side effects. No redundant wording.

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 two-parameter write tool with both schema and output schema present, the description covers the core action, the idempotent edge case, and the write scope. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 fully documents rec_id and resolution_note. The description only adds the label 'optional close note,' which doesn't materially extend what the schema already says, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Mark an incident resolved,' and specifies exactly what the tool does: reads Status, conditionally no-ops, writes Status/Quick Action, and optionally writes a close note. This clearly separates it from siblings get_incident and add_note, which read or attach notes rather than change resolution state.

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 context is clear: use this tool when an incident should be marked resolved. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the read-then-write behavior and optional close-note wording make the intended invocation context obvious.

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