incident_index_fetch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It describes the fetch operation and the summary output but does not disclose side effects, error handling, or safety characteristics (e.g., read-only, destructive potential). The transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 only two sentences long, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and output, while the second adds audience and value. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, output structure (total count, breakdowns, sorted IDs), and target users. It is mostly complete but could benefit from mentioning error cases or prerequisites.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter 'origin' with a description and format. The description adds context that the origin is the vendor's base URL for the index, which aligns with the schema. It adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool fetches a vendor's .well-known/ai-incidents.json index and returns a procurement-friendly summary. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'incident_fetch' by calling itself the 'HEADLINE TOOL' and the 'cheapest way' for scanning incident history.

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 identifies the target audience (CISO or procurement reviewer) and the high-level use case (scanning a vendor's incident history). It implies a lightweight overview but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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