Get an incident — by identifier

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's extra notes about path alternatives, no generated identifier query, and empty body add useful context. The 'See C06' reference is opaque and not self-contained, which lowers the transparency value.

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 compact, starts with the core purpose, and includes the endpoint and reference without excessive prose. Some phrasing ('despite their QUERY PARAMETERS heading', 'See C06') is internally focused but the overall length is still appropriate.

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 annotated GET with one required path parameter, the endpoint, path-alternative note, and empty body note cover most invocation needs. However, the description does not state what the tool returns, does not tie it to the xmatters_get_incidents/get_an_incident siblings, and leaves 'See C06' unexplained, so an agent would still face ambiguity.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the tool description compensates by clarifying that the identifier goes in the path, that UUID and incidentIdentifier are both valid path alternatives, and that no identifier query is generated. The schema-only query object description is otherwise open; this external guidance is materially useful.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('an incident'), and lookup mode ('by identifier') and gives the exact endpoint template, so an agent can tell this is a single-incident read. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explain how this differs from the very similarly named sibling xmatters_get_an_incident.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tool is mentioned despite siblings like xmatters_get_incidents and xmatters_get_an_incident. The only implied trigger is having an incident identifier; the description leaves the choice between this and the similarly named sibling to inference.

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