swsd_get_incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the response is a passthrough of SWSD's payload including custom_fields_values when present, and there is an explicit speed/cost tradeoff between short and long detail levels. It stops short of noting auth or rate-limit behavior.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the identity, the pre-requisite, and the option are each addressed once. The detail_level sentence is near-duplicative of the schema's own wording, which is the only slack in an otherwise tight definition.

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 passthrough getter with annotations carrying the safety profile and an output schema carrying the return shape, this is nearly complete. Coverage of auth/permission requirements and behavior on a non-existent or out-of-scope ID is the remaining gap.

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 schema already documents the digit-count auto-detection for id and the full enum semantics of detail_level. The description's detail_level sentence largely restates the schema text, adding only the motivating example ("show me everything about ticket X"), so baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ("Fetch one SWSD incident by numeric ID") and immediately scopes the return ("full incident detail as returned by SWSD (passthrough)"). This is clearly distinguishable from the many sibling list_* tools, and the numeric-ID qualifier separates it from name/filter-based lookup.

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?

Names the alternative and the selecting condition explicitly: "Use swsd_list_incidents first if you only have a name or filter — IDs are not guessable." It also gives a second conditional rule for detail_level: "long" when the user wants comments/attachments/audits, default short for speed/cost.

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