incident_detections__get_detection_v2

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating the route — no note on what a detection payload represents, error behavior for an unknown UUID, or latency/scope considerations.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but it is also redundant — 'Get detection' appears twice around the path, and the path duplicates the tool name and annotations title. Tightening to a single clause stating the fetch scope would lose no information and free space for differentiation.

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 two-parameter single-resource GET with complete annotations and complete schema coverage, the definition plus structured fields is nearly sufficient to invoke correctly. The remaining gap is only sibling disambiguation (v1 vs v2) and no output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required.

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%: detectionUuid is documented as a UUID reference to a Detection and the optional 'fields' projection parameter is fully explained in the schema. The description contributes nothing further about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 gives a verb+resource ('Get detection') and appends the REST path GET /v2/detections/{detectionUuid}, which confirms this fetches a single detection by UUID from the v2 endpoint. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_detection_v1 or list_detections_v2, so an agent cannot tell which version-fetch to pick from the text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this when you already have a detectionUuid, nor when to prefer get_detection_v1 versus this v2 variant, nor when list_detections_v2 is the better entry point. The endpoint string implies a single-item lookup but supplies no alternatives or exclusions.

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