Get Incident Sub Status

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 nothing beyond that: no note on permissions, whether an unknown id errors or returns empty, or what the include/fields expansion costs. With the bar lowered by annotations, this still contributes no behavioral context.

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 short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — the brevity comes at the cost of disambiguation the agent actually needs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the schema documents all three parameters. What is missing is the conceptual context: what an incident sub status is, and how this differs from the sibling get_sub_status. For a get-by-id tool in a dense namespace of near-duplicate names, that gap matters.

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 the schema itself is unusually helpful (the id property even warns there is no incident_sub_status_id argument). The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so 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?

The description states a verb (Retrieves) and a resource (incident_sub_status) scoped by id, but it is essentially a restatement of the name/title. It never clarifies how an 'incident_sub_status' differs from the plain 'sub_status' resource exposed by the sibling get_sub_status and list_sub_statuses, so an agent cannot confidently pick between them from this text.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (get_sub_status, list_sub_statuses, update_incident_sub_status). The agent must infer that this is the single-record fetch of an incident-scoped sub-status.

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