Get an incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that the response eagerly includes merge relationships and related resources, which hints at payload weight, but it says nothing about authorization scope, mutation, or errors beyond what structured data provides.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the notable contents of the response come first. Every clause 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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not explain return values, and it doesn't over-reach. It is nearly complete for a simple by-ID getter, losing a point only for the absence of any when-to-use framing relative to the large set of incident siblings.

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 both parameters (incident_id, X-Orchestra-Account-Id) are documented in the schema itself, including the account-scoping rules. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single incident') and adds the shape of the payload (merge relationships, summary counts, related resources). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from list_incidents, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the by-ID lookup for one incident versus list_incidents. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool, no prerequisites, and no routing away from merge_incidents, list_incident_events, or update_incident.

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