Get Incident Report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the content an incident report carries (responsible operation, owning team, before/after metrics), which is real signal. It's silent on auth requirements, whether the knowledge base is writable, or failure behavior, so the safety profile is only implied by 'Retrieve'.

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, front-loaded with the action, followed by what the report contains. No filler and nothing repeated from the name or 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be spelled out, and the description compensates by summarizing the report's content. For a read-only knowledge-base fetch with one optional param, this is close to complete; only the sibling-routing and auth context are 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% and the single parameter's schema entry already explains the URN and the demo fallback. The description adds no format, syntax, or URN example, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve a Polygraph incident report from DataHub's knowledge base') and clarifies the payload (operation responsible, owning team, before/after metrics). That content sketch distinguishes it from siblings like get_integrity_score or can_i_trust, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing against the five sibling tools (can_i_trust, get_integrity_score, explain_verdict_semantics, etc.). The only conditional language, 'Omit to fetch the demo incident,' lives in the schema, not the description.

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