get_investigation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds two facts beyond them: the resource is 'immutable' (a property of the stored record, not this call) and the review note is 'separate' from the investigation, which hints at the payload's structure. With an output schema present, no further return detail is required.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and primary resource, no filler or redundancy. Every clause adds information.

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?

A low-complexity read tool with an output schema, so return values need no explanation. It is adequate overall, but the completely undocumented identifier parameter and lack of any usage context leave visible gaps.

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 0% and the single required parameter, investigation_id, is never described. 'Saved investigation' loosely implies what the ID points to, but no format, source, or example is given, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Read') and resource ('saved investigation') plus an extra artifact ('human review note'). It is distinguishable from list_investigations by 'saved investigation' (singular fetch), though it never explicitly names the sibling it is not.

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 to list_investigations or investigate_change. The purpose implies retrieval of an existing record but gives the agent no criteria for choosing this over the listing sibling.

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