Get Incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only that PIR-related fields are included; it says nothing about behavior on an unknown ID (error vs empty), or any permission/visibility scoping on incidents.

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 comes first and the qualifier follows. Nothing is redundant enough to cut.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is close to sufficient. The only omission is how it relates to sibling retrieval tools (search_incidents, get_incident_retrospective), which would sharpen selection.

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 coverage is 100% and the incident_id description already enumerates the accepted formats (UUID, 4460, #4460, INC-4460). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Retrieve a single incident') with a qualifier that it includes PIR-related fields, which distinguishes it from a plain list/get. It doesn't name or contrast with search_incidents or list_incidents, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'for direct verification' hints at the use case (confirming details on one known incident), implying search_incidents for discovery. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so an agent must infer routing from the sibling list.

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